PDA

View Full Version : LGBTQI


57mm
10th Sep 2016, 09:35
Sorry guys, but I'm having trouble keeping up. Apparently, the new spectrum is LGBTQI. What does Q mean?

Pontius Navigator
10th Sep 2016, 09:37
Laser guided bomb training qualified instructor?

I believe there is an alternative if you search on Google.

85Shiney
10th Sep 2016, 09:39
A quick google gives

Urban Dictionary: lgbtqi (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lgbtqi)


I wonder what letters will be added next?

Ogre
10th Sep 2016, 09:47
I was led to believe that the Q stands for "Queer" by a presenter on our local morning chat show.

As that word was used in years gone by to describe at least one of the other categories, I am curious as to how exactly each letter is classified.

(On a slight tangent, I was once stopped in the corridor by one of our HR colleagues and asked "what LGB means to me?" As I was at that time engaged in systems engineering some weapon aiming bits and pieces, my reply was primarily focused on release baskets, circular error of probability, and the ilk. I was then chastised verbally for giving the wrong answer, when I got a word in edgeways I responded that she had in fact asked the wrong question, and that my answer had been factually correct as that is what it meant to me at that time!)

B Fraser
10th Sep 2016, 09:50
I'm similarly baffled.


Should it not be LGBTQIPNGACGAF ?


"People Not Getting Any" and "Couldn't Give a F***" will feel left out.

charliegolf
10th Sep 2016, 10:05
I am reliably informed that the L and G Qs think the T and G Qs are not kosher Qs, and should mince orf! Go figure.

CG

B Fraser: the really serious and offensive thing in all this, is that (a la Peter Tatchell) you must be seen to 'give a f**k', or you're a hate crime wannabe.

troppo
10th Sep 2016, 10:10
acronyms just keep getting longer. fag and homo were easier abbreviations.

*duck*

RAT 5
10th Sep 2016, 10:18
the new spectrum is LGBTQI

Am I taking this too literally and being thick, or is the question about light? If so, where is Red, Orange, Yellow, Violet?

Flight_Idle
10th Sep 2016, 11:23
There's enough long acronyms in the aviation world, so it shouldn't be too much of a mental strain for pilots & engineers to keep up.

Pinky the pilot
10th Sep 2016, 11:36
Prefer the acronym that has been doing the rounds here in Australia for a number of years;
Dilligaf

"Does it look like I give a ****"

No.

vapilot2004
10th Sep 2016, 12:47
I tuned in hoping someone explained the "I".

TWT
10th Sep 2016, 12:57
'I' = Intersex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Sue VÍtements
10th Sep 2016, 13:04
Well if there was an L group and a G group and a B group etc you'd be complaining that there were too many groups. They got lumped together and you STILL complain.

Personally I think there should be a MOG group = Moaning Old Git

sitigeltfel
10th Sep 2016, 15:15
'I' = Intersex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

You either have Y chromosomes, or you don't. Anyone who says otherwise is talking bollox. ;)

ORAC
10th Sep 2016, 15:38
Really sitigeltfel, perhaps you ought to discuss that with Professor Vilain? (http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/units/gender/experts/vilain.html)

Sue VÍtements
10th Sep 2016, 15:47
Until 1968, there was a "gender police" in the Olympics and basically every athlete had to go to a doctor who would do a physical examination of his or her genitalia. And this was considered degrading and humiliating by lots of athletes. Yeah, by perhaps 50% of them :p

Pontius Navigator
10th Sep 2016, 16:01
Pinkey, as this is an aviation forum that should be DILLIGAFF.

B Fraser
10th Sep 2016, 16:04
I'm firmly in the CGAF group. Don't get me wrong, this country can never apologise enough for what it did to Alan Turing and he should have a statue in Trafalgar Square. The point is that we have reached a position where most variations are accepted. The few that are not refer to the Jimmy Savilles of this world.


Anyway, nobody bats an eyelid these days and GAY really does mean "good as you". Why then do groups continue to march up and down drawing attention to themselves ? I thought you were fighting for acceptance and integration ? Now that you have it, you're still not happy and keep inventing new distinctions to be judged by. I thought the problem was that society was judging you ?

Tankertrashnav
10th Sep 2016, 16:19
Quite so B Fraser. Thank God we have got over all that business opf persecuting men for their sexuality. The legalising of homosexuality removed at a stroke the risk of blackmail which was the reason homosexuals were considered as security risks. Quite what the SIB does these days I'm not sure, now that they don't have to spend their time looking for "queers" in the ranks.

I have a very long term gay friend who often accompanies Mrs TTN and myself to concerts, the opera etc. He is one of those quiet "minds his own business" sort of chaps who doesn't give out any sort of clue to his sexuality, which he regards as purely his own business, and who wouldn't be seen dead at a "gay pride" parade.

UniFoxOs
10th Sep 2016, 16:38
One remembers, back in the '60s, frequenting a bar called the "Tarts, Queers and Hatters". I don't suppose it's there any more!

G-CPTN
10th Sep 2016, 16:56
One remembers, back in the '60s, frequenting a bar called the "Tarts, Queers and Hatters". I don't suppose it's there any more!
For Luton football fans?

fa2fi
10th Sep 2016, 17:11
Completely unrelated but I must say how positively surprised I've been. I don't live in the most progressive, nor the most open minded part of the country but I have seen a change for the better.

Eight years ago when we (two guys) bought our first house, we would get lots of funny looks and people would be whispering when we were in sales offices and lots of awkwardness when it came to viewings. Today we are looking to buy a new place and it's completely different. I just felt normal and was treated like I imagine a straight couple would have been.

In terms of pride and marches I do still think they have a place. They remind us of the vile way that some of our community have been (and continue to be) treated and is a chance to commemorate those less fortunate than ourselves. Crime figures for the trams community are also horrendously high. We (LGBTQI....) may have equal rights as such but the community as a whole still has a lot to learn. Besides, it's a fabulous excuse for a major p-as up.

You must also remember that many initiatives are not drawn up by the community (like gay traffic lights) but rather overly keen local authority diversity officers.

racedo
10th Sep 2016, 21:10
Recently had an arguement with a HR someone who asked me had I Gay friends, I replied no and got the well you are a religious freak (she knew I am Catholic) who hates everybody the church does.

Michael was walking by and stopped, he is gay and a friend and person said you claimed you have no Gay friends.

Before I could say a word, Michel gets involved and ask HRs person why are you classifying people intp Gay and Non Gay..................... we are all just PEOPLE.
Then says "He trying to tell you he has friends and doesn't try and split them into the crap you are doing".

I just walked away and left them arguing :)

racedo
10th Sep 2016, 21:13
Eight years ago when we (two guys) bought our first house, we would get lots of funny looks and people would be whispering when we were in sales offices and lots of awkwardness when it came to viewings. Today we are looking to buy a new place and it's completely different. I just felt normal and was treated like I imagine a straight couple would have been.


You mean you get treated now like shit, just like every other buyer by an Estate agent.............

Arm out the window
11th Sep 2016, 01:33
You either have Y chromosomes, or you don't. Anyone who says otherwise is talking bollox.

I thought the same until I heard a very knowledgeable researcher interviewed on the radio the other week - apparently it's not that simple, there are all kinds of variations in our DNA which can and do produce a wide range of sexual characteristics, so within the broad categories of bloke and woman, what physical characteristics you have and who, if anyone, you feel like shagging can be a real lottery.

It was only a radio Q and A thing so not a massive amount of detail, but enough to change my viewpoint on some long entrenched (from high school science classes) ideas about dominant and recessive genes, heredity and so on.

Regarding the LGBTQI label thing, I reckon that's a load of bollox though - seems like one of those over-PC bandwagon things that once somebody's said it publicly, every government department or spokesperson of anything has to include it.

People are whatever they are, and as long as we accept that we don't need to carry on so much about it all the time, surely.

herman the crab
11th Sep 2016, 02:38
LGB was and always will be Long Beach airport to me - where I learned to fly.

HTC

Arm out the window
11th Sep 2016, 03:11
So was your instructor a LGBQTI (Long Beach Qualified Technical Instructor)?

fa2fi
11th Sep 2016, 07:02
Yeah we treated like crap from estate agents and an inconvenience by sales reps st new builds. It's nice to be treated just like anyone else ;-).

Recedo - Mr fa2fi works for local government and his former diversity officer is a openly a gay hater. He seems to think diversity does not extend beyond fellow black African Christians. Hes no longer the diversity officer but he continues to tell Mr fa2fi's friends that he's a dinner going to hell and that that should help him. I do think diversity officers and the like should be gotten rid of.

MOSTAFA
11th Sep 2016, 07:14
ORAC - open your other eye, there are two possible outcomes to Dr Vilain's hypothesis, because until proven - that's all it is.

If he finds any results that can confirm his hypothesis, which he hasn't, then he will have made a discovery. If he can't confirm his hypothesis then he will have made a discovery. That's how is works. The intensity of his conviction that his hypothesis is true; has absolutely no bearing over whether it is true or not.

cavortingcheetah
11th Sep 2016, 07:19
One has sometimes wondered whether one could describe the increase of velocity of the Starship Enterprise from normal to warped speed as vanishing in a poof of light.

ORAC
11th Sep 2016, 08:11
MOSTAFA, whether his hypothesis is correct or not, the evidence upon which he bases it shows that the matter is nowhere near as clear cut as sitigeltfel states.

B Fraser
11th Sep 2016, 08:32
Mr Cheetah,


That would have been entirely possible with Mr Sulu at the helm. That quip was told to me a little while ago by a card carrying LGBTXYZ123 mate.

MOSTAFA
11th Sep 2016, 08:40
Well at least you agree it's hypothesis. As does Sitig I'm guessing, by the sound of things. For every scientist for, there's a scientist against, science is only good until the next scientist comes along and proves it all wrong. In this case it's just hypothesis. Happen Dr Vilain should wait until he has proof, not supposition. Now you've made your point and I've made mine - let's leave it at that.

Eddie Dean
11th Sep 2016, 09:59
As a Catholic one should pray for the soul of a gay person, hate the lifestyle and forgive him his sins

racedo
11th Sep 2016, 10:14
As a Catholic one should pray for the soul of a gay person, hate the lifestyle and forgive him his sins

As a Catholic and someone who will attend Mass later I refuse to as you put it "pray for the soul of a gay person". I just pray for everybody without feeling a need to single out and not up to me to forgive anybodys sins that was not done onto me.

Some Sundays I do try and leave out Leeds United supporters, one priest said that was a sin in itself but he agreed less of one that supporting Leeds United :E

VP959
11th Sep 2016, 10:27
Regarding the genetic debate and gender. When Caster Semenya's case started a controversy, I took the time to look into the whole area of genetic make-up and gender, partly because it seemed to me that the IAAF and the ASA were behaving incompetently. At the time, my guess was that she was male.

Having spent a fair bit of time reading up on it, I've learned two important things. Firstly, having XX or XY chromosomes very definitely does not prove gender. Secondly, the whole concept of gender, in terms of genetics, is hellish complex, and no one seems to have a full understanding as to what makes a man male or a woman female.

What seems certain is that external genitalia are a lousy indicator of gender, as are a number of simple genetic tests, such as whether someone is XX or XY, or carries the SRY or DAX1 genes or not.

It seems that humans are not very neatly divided into male and female at all, and that there is a wide variation of "in between" cases, where people appear male or female but themselves feel to be the opposite.

Doctors have a lot to answer for, I think. My wife used to be a paediatric nurse, and looked after a fair few children years ago where the midwife/doctor had assigned the wrong gender at birth, based on physical appearance. There were some real horror stories of children assigned the wrong gender and then pretty much forced to try and be that gender, including cases where doctors went so far as to perform irreversible surgery in order to "correct" what they saw as an abnormality.

Eddie Dean
11th Sep 2016, 10:45
How did the Doctors apply the wrong gender?

Talking from personal experience Hempy

VP959
11th Sep 2016, 11:09
How did the Doctors apply the wrong gender?

I'm assuming this was a response to my post.

Apparently it's not uncommon for gender to be uncertain from an external examination at birth. Midwives and doctors are under time pressure to tell the parents whether it's a boy or girl, and in the past have got it wrong.

There are a host of reasons that external genitalia can look unusual at birth, for example, it's not that uncommon for girls to be borne with what appears to be a penis (and baby boys are usually born without external testes, so they don't help with gender identification), for several reasons, one being exposure to testosterone before birth. Often what looks a bit like a penis (which is probably an enlarged clitoris) will shrink after birth and the child will develop normally as a girl. Similarly, baby boys may be borne with no apparent penis, and, because boy babies are normally born without descended testes, they can be mistaken for a baby girl. Again, the chances are that things will sort themselves out in the weeks or months after birth.

The above are relatively common; ask any midwife or maternity unit doctor or nurse and and he/she will almost certainly say they've seen a few cases like this. I understand that it is normal now to do a very early blood test on newborns, to positively identify their gender as quickly as possible, to try and avoid some of the mistakes of the past. Must be tough on the parents, though, not knowing whether they have a boy or a girl for some time after birth.

The rarer conditions are those like intersex, and androgen insensitivity syndrome, where the genitalia may look outwardly male or female at birth, but the true gender of the individual is the opposite, or neither male nor female. My (limited) understanding is that Caster Semenya is one of those rarer cases, someone who has sex organs of both sexes (apparently she has undescended testes and a vagina and female external genitalia).

vapilot2004
11th Sep 2016, 12:46
'I' = Intersex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Thank you TWT. I've been told this could also loosely describe people as they get into old age.

vapilot2004
11th Sep 2016, 12:50
As a Catholic one should pray for the soul of a gay person, hate the lifestyle and forgive him his sins

DSXJzybEeJM

ORAC
11th Sep 2016, 13:16
VP959, read up on the Guevedoces....

The extraordinary case of the Guevedoces - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981)

racedo
11th Sep 2016, 13:19
vaPilot

Think you confused.

Catholics are not Biblebashers.

VP959
11th Sep 2016, 13:46
VP959, read up on the Guevedoces....

The extraordinary case of the Guevedoces - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34290981)
Thanks for that, what a fascinating story.

My wife told me about some of the children she'd looked after whose gender had been wrongly identified at birth, but the majority were cases where the true gender of the child became clear a few weeks or months after birth, not many years, as with those children.

It just amplifies the point that our gender is not as easy to define as some might like to think, and that it really is a hellishly complex conundrum trying to find out what makes us either, or neither, gender.

Pontius Navigator
11th Sep 2016, 19:36
As a Catholic one should pray for the soul of a gay person, hate the lifestyle and forgive him his sins
Curiously I read this differently from Hempy etc.

I don't read it as Eddie Dean saying I am a Catholic and .
.

But as Catholics should . . .thus referring to Catholic dogma. Just one instance of the internet and different interpretation.

For the record I don't have any gay, bisexual or heterosexual friends specifically because as posted above I have no idea of my friends orientation.

charliegolf
11th Sep 2016, 19:45
As a Catholic one should pray for the soul of a gay person, hate the lifestyle and forgive him his sins

That's a play on "Hate the sin, love the sinner", which is more the Catholic version. Any gay person I might hate (strong word), I'd hate if he or she were hetero. The Catholic Church is getting there even though the wheels turn mighty slow.

CG

ORAC
11th Sep 2016, 20:00
Physician, heal thyself.....

https://www.rt.com/viral/357311-student-priests-grindr-scandal/

Eddie Dean
11th Sep 2016, 20:00
Correct you are Pontious Navigator.

There are medical conditions that cause confused gender, but I consider these separate from those that decide they want to be another gender.

On the other hand I care not.

Sue VÍtements
11th Sep 2016, 22:33
I've never really understood the need for gender. I suppose there would be a biological cost associated with being gender neutral, then entering into a weird breeding phase where a gender could be randomly assigned (like Spock when he lost his logic) but then again how biologically expensive is it to randomly assign and then keep useless organs for an entire lifespan? Trees do it, Flounders do it, even educated fleas ... One more advantage of an androgynous norm followed by a random gender assignment would be that rather than distributing the genders at ~50/50 before birth, the breeding cycle could compensate for any current imbalance, like say after a war (which could arguably be called a natural event).

One further advantage is that it would instantly cure gender discrimination ... because you'd have no idea what gender you might become on the next go around. :=

Hempy
12th Sep 2016, 02:29
Eddie, I apologise for misinterpreting your comment. Forgive me, I've deleted my post.

vapilot2004
12th Sep 2016, 04:28
vaPilot

Catholics are not Biblebashers.

Is a bible basher the same thing as a bible thumper? ...AKA a holier-than-thou evangelical [and Protestant] Christian.

If so, I agree. We've got a few to many of those types here in the states.

alwayzinit
12th Sep 2016, 08:53
It is interesting that there are more than a few who claim the various holy tomes are written by their corresponding Deity.
Without meaning to be too pedantic surely none of said tomes have been written by a Deity, merely they are the words and interpretation of those who claim to have been spoken to by the corresponding.
The stone tablets of the 10 Commandments for instance, was there a witness to the exchange between Deity and man?
In most medical circles " hearing voices" is far from a good sign, mental healthwise speaking.
Yet countless millions have been butchered, burnt and worse just because they disagreed with the "Words of ______" ( fill in the blank as you like) as written in the holy tomes.
The major religions of the world could pay off all the 3rd world debt with their combined assets, yet do not, just as the Deity of choice refuses to intervene in the massacre of innocents.
Seems to me that these "Holy Orders" and Deities of every creed are a bunch of self serving sadistic voyeurs, who could but choose not to.
I have a word for beings such as that, however it would be moderated.....................
Ideas are great, they only get bloody when they become Beliefs.

Curious Pax
12th Sep 2016, 09:32
Correct you are Pontious Navigator.

There are medical conditions that cause confused gender, but I consider these separate from those that decide they want to be another gender.

On the other hand I care not.

I'm curious to know how you distinguish the 2. Do you give a full physical and biological examination before deciding that some has decided to be another gender? This thread has been interesting in highlighting that some perceived biological 'norms' 50 years ago are no longer correct, or at the very least subject to considerable evidence based doubt as science moves forward.

teeteringhead
12th Sep 2016, 09:40
Curious

one knows of a number of male to female transgenders (forgive me if my words are wrong or offensive) who have previously fathered children.

Surely this is sufficient evidence that they were truly male?

Eddie Dean
12th Sep 2016, 09:44
I'm curious to know how you distinguish the 2. Do you give a full physical and biological examination before deciding that some has decided to be another gender? This thread has been interesting in highlighting that some perceived biological 'norms' 50 years ago are no longer correct, or at the very least subject to considerable evidence based doubt as science moves forward.
The so called perceived biological norms are in fact actual biological norms. There are deviations from the norm as explained by an extra X chromosome or other medical anomaly.
Males have penii and females have vagina.

As I stated earlier, care I do not.

Hempy, forgiveness comes from your God but I accept your apology

Alwazonit, Quran written by Mohamad, Old Testament by ancient prophets, New Testament by the Apostles. So which Book do you refer that was written by Deity

Curious, enough evidence for you and me but apparantly not for others

racedo
12th Sep 2016, 11:30
It is interesting that there are more than a few who claim the various holy tomes are written by their corresponding Deity.


Bible........ Gods word written and interpreted by man


Yet countless millions have been butchered, burnt and worse just because they disagreed with the "Words of ______" ( fill in the blank as you like) as written in the holy tomes.


God allowed man free will, that allows people to do as they wish guided or not by their conscience.


The major religions of the world could pay off all the 3rd world debt with their combined assets, yet do not, just as the Deity of choice refuses to intervene in the massacre of innocents.


So what price Sistine Chapel and then what purpose ?
St Peters in Rome ?

The oft screamed idea is that religious leaders should sell everything, they don't own, so to pay the debts borrowed by despots and used to buy property, cars, jewellery and arms from the Western countrys.
2 weeks after this the Western bankers would be at the airport saying as you have no debt then we can sell you all these arms and a nice property on the Thames.

As for intervening in massacre of the innocents thing you will find that the Pope speaks out but the Leaders who rely on the funding from the Arms dealers make their excuses and do nothing.................. as it has ever been.


Seems to me that these "Holy Orders" and Deities of every creed are a bunch of self serving sadistic voyeurs, who could but choose not to.


Oh they speak out just like in the slaughter of Christians in Syria but as UK self interest is to fund the peace loving head hackers in Syria the relgious leaders were not welcomed as the Saudi's and Qataris would stop investing in London.


I have a word for beings such as that, however it would be moderated.....................
Ideas are great, they only get bloody when they become Beliefs.

Perhaps need to get out more.

Tech Guy
12th Sep 2016, 11:35
You either have Y chromosomes, or you don't. Anyone who says otherwise is talking bollox. ;)

Or talking without bollox.

At ease
12th Sep 2016, 14:46
LGBTQI?

It seems that "A" has been omitted.

As in "A" for abomination.

Lonewolf_50
12th Sep 2016, 14:47
I am surprised that nobody has yet replied to the OP with "there's nowt so queer as folk (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/there-s-nowt-so-queer-as-folk)" as the simplest answer.

Martin the Martian
12th Sep 2016, 14:50
LGBTQI?

It seems that "A" has been omitted.

As in "A" for abomination.

Ooh, that's a big word. Did you get help with spelling it?

Muppet.

Harley Quinn
12th Sep 2016, 17:56
It is interesting that there are more than a few who claim the various holy tomes are written by their corresponding Deity.
Without meaning to be too pedantic surely none of said tomes have been written by a Deity, merely they are the words and interpretation of those who claim to have been spoken to by the corresponding.
The stone tablets of the 10 Commandments for instance, was there a witness to the exchange between Deity and man?
In most medical circles " hearing voices" is far from a good sign, mental healthwise speaking.
Yet countless millions have been butchered, burnt and worse just because they disagreed with the "Words of ______" ( fill in the blank as you like) as written in the holy tomes.
The major religions of the world could pay off all the 3rd world debt with their combined assets, yet do not, just as the Deity of choice refuses to intervene in the massacre of innocents.
Seems to me that these "Holy Orders" and Deities of every creed are a bunch of self serving sadistic voyeurs, who could but choose not to.
I have a word for beings such as that, however it would be moderated.....................
Ideas are great, they only get bloody when they become Beliefs.

Spot on, I think the believers have been comprehensively conned.

Expatrick
12th Sep 2016, 18:07
You(Anglo Saxons) think you've got problems! You've only got 26 letters to play with, here in Hungary we have 44!

Hempy
12th Sep 2016, 18:10
Apparently Eddie accepts my apology but only sky fairies can actually forgive me.

No different to Islamism then.

I'm glad all the sky fairies are on the same page.

Note: Please advise the current US voters that only 'your' Sky Fairy is on the right page. Other 'Sky Fairies', whist coming from the same book, are irrelevant.

racedo
12th Sep 2016, 20:03
Apparently Eddie accepts my apology but only sky fairies can actually forgive me.

Anybody can forgive you.

Eddie Dean
12th Sep 2016, 20:09
Apparently Eddie accepts my apology but only sky fairies can actually forgive me.

No different to Islamism then.

I'm glad all the sky fairies are on the same page.

Note: Please advise the current US voters that only 'your' Sky Fairy is on the right page. Other 'Sky Fairies', whist coming from the same book, are irrelevant. Please expand on your Sky Faerie theory.
From my research, Islam Judaism and Christianity all worship the God of Abraham and regard only a relationship between a man and woman as blessed by God, anything else is an Abonimation to them.

One can have ethic outside of these three modern theologies and attain the grace of God by encompassing the one Great Truth - Be honest in all dealings.

ORAC
12th Sep 2016, 20:19
But you can't pick and choose - if you can't have one, you can't have the rest.....

https://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k?utm_term=.ryxOpP3kO#.bxYJGWP0J

vapilot2004
12th Sep 2016, 20:24
From my research, Islam Judaism and Christianity all worship the God of Abraham and regard only a relationship between a man and woman as blessed by God, anything else is an Abonimation to them.

Leviticus 18:22

These religions also say:

I can sell my young daughter as a slave. - Exodus 21:7

I can immolate my mother in a small ceremony for wearing cotton blends. Leviticus 19:19

Working on the Sabbath (Friday sundown - Sat or Sunday depending on your religious flavour) is punishable by death. -Exodus 35:2

Farmer John should be stoned to death for planting different crops side by side. Leviticus 19:19

Eddie Dean
12th Sep 2016, 20:55
Oh, now you're trying to second guess God? This one I agree you were right on, that one, not so much.

Must be confusing deciding which was the priests and which were God.

"God forbid" (sic) they were homophobic and it had nothing to do with God at all.

Still, you know best.....You do not know my beliefs as I am keeping them out of the discussion.
Homophobic means fear of, not disagree with lifestyle of. Just saying.
And yet caring not I am being

BehindBlueEyes
17th Sep 2016, 20:39
Even though every colour of fruit loops tastes exactly the same, I have decided I like the purple ones best and will kill anyone who likes any other colour.

Religion explained as a breakfast cereal.

Eddie Dean
17th Sep 2016, 21:43
Australia is on the cusp of deciding to change the definition of marriage, maybe by plebiscite or direct vote in Parliament.
Those in the pro camp(sic) are concerned that the cons will take a plebiscite campaign as licence to denigrate the other side.
I have found the queer folk to be the most vocal in their vilification of the traditionalists.

Arm out the window
18th Sep 2016, 04:37
Re the plebiscite, as my father in law (who you might call a traditional kind of bloke) said this morning, 'Let them do whatever they like, who cares - why not spend the money on a hospital instead'.

Hear hear.

Pontius Navigator
18th Sep 2016, 13:40
Curiously, a book club categorized a book as in the thread title. More a selling point than a descriptive of the story.

le Pingouin
18th Sep 2016, 15:27
Eddie, how would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry an adult of your choosing by a pompous moralising minority? It's not nice to impose your values on someone else when they aren't trying to impose anything on you. And changing the definition of a purely legal arrangement (marriage) isn't imposing anything on you or anyone else. Why would it change how you or anyone relates to their opposite sex partner?

Your religious rights extend as far as the end of their nose - anything further is trying to impose on my rights.

Eddie Dean
18th Sep 2016, 20:57
Eddie, how would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry an adult of your choosing by a pompous moralising minority? It's not nice to impose your values on someone else when they aren't trying to impose anything on you. And changing the definition of a purely legal arrangement (marriage) isn't imposing anything on you or anyone else. Why would it change how you or anyone relates to their opposite sex partner?
Your religious rights extend as far as the end of their nose - anything further is trying to impose on my rights.Do you consider Jews, Christians and Muslims to be a minority group?
Where have I imposed my values?
In fact, where have I stated my values?
The minority group in this paradigm are the queer folk.
Not decided how to vote in the upcoming plebiscite in Australia.

le Pingouin
19th Sep 2016, 02:57
No, I'm meaning the minority of the Australian population oppose same-sex marriage. Polling over the last few years has clearly shown the majority are in favour.

Most religions are minority groups, Christianity soon will be if you look at the ABS stats and not all adherents to those faiths oppose SSM by a long shot.

I was mainly using "you" in the third person.

The plebiscite is just a huge waste of money as a sop to the more extreme elements in the Liberal Party in Aus. And they won't even be bound by the results.

Eddie Dean
19th Sep 2016, 03:29
.....The plebiscite is just a huge waste of money as a sop to the more extreme elements in the Liberal Party in Aus. And they won't even be bound by the results.Are the extreme elements those with a different view point to you?
If the plebiscite reinforces the view that 80% or more of the voting population want same gender people to marry, it would be a brave politician to vote otherwise in either House of Parliament.

I have re read your post and in fact you were asking me how I would feel etc.
I have no idea how the other youse(sic) would feel.

Factually the religious groups are not a minority, either singularly or as a group.

le Pingouin
19th Sep 2016, 03:58
The extremes are the likes of Bernardi, Christensen and those who support the ACL line. What have those politicians got to lose if they go against it?

If you look at the trend in ABS stats Christianity in Aus will fall below 50% soon if it hasn't already. I'll find a link later. The rest of the religions are very much minority groups - a few percent at best.

11Fan
19th Sep 2016, 16:31
Leviticus 18:22Catching up on back episodes of The West Wing there VAP?

Hempy
19th Sep 2016, 16:38
11Fan, maybe, maybe not. Are you denying that the content is inaccurate?

le Pingouin
19th Sep 2016, 16:59
Eddie. Since 1991 census data indicates a fairly consistent 3% decrease in Christians per census:

1991: 74.0%
1996: 70.9%
2001: 68.0%
2006: 63.9%
2011: 61.1%

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

You'll have to Google 2006 and 2011 or trust my ABS derived figures.

Assuming the same trend of 3% per 5 years, by 2030 or so less than 50% of Australians will be Christian.

Somewhat less rigorously (but maybe rather significantly) a Roy Morgan poll in 2013 indicated a significant decrease in the number of Christians - from 60.9% in 2011 to 52.6% in 2013. It's now the end of 2016 so at this rate Christians are well less than 50%.

www.roymorgan.com/findings/5541-fewer-australians-identify-as-christian-december-2013-201404152234 (http://www.pprune.org/www.roymorgan.com/findings/5541-fewer-australians-identify-as-christian-december-2013-201404152234)

The non-religious will soon be the largest group (if we aren't already) - in 2011 only the Roman Catholics outnumbered the non-religious: 25.3% to 22.3%. Not that it's a popularity contest but the Christian (soon to be former) majority is going to have get used to being the (soon to be) minority with the ensuing loss of power and influence. Welcome to life as the rest of us know it.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013

I hope you like the ABS facts and my not unreasonable projections. Interesting times, we're no longer the Anglo mono-culture we once were. Says an atheist with Anglican parents, a Vietnamese Buddhist wife, a brother who is married (in the UK) to an irreligious Scottish bloke, a gay uncle who had a partner for over 50 years ('til death do us part), and a secular Iranian brother-in-law.

Probably not your typical 1950s Australian family.....

ORAC
19th Sep 2016, 18:21
You(Anglo Saxons) think you've got problems! You've only got 26 letters to play with, here in Hungary we have 44! And a drastic dearth of vowels it would seem.....

Eddie Dean
19th Sep 2016, 20:05
Eddie..........
I hope you like the ABS facts and my not unreasonable projections. Interesting times, we're no longer the Anglo mono-culture we once were. Says an atheist with Anglican parents, a Vietnamese Buddhist wife, a brother who is married (in the UK) to an irreligious Scottish bloke, a gay uncle who had a partner for over 50 years ('til death do us part), and a secular Iranian brother-in-law.

Probably not your typical 1950s Australian family.....
Your facts and figures do highlight the great diversity of our country, which is not reflected in the parliament.

We all have mixed ancestry, with family and friends of varying sexuality and religious beliefs.

One must respect all of them while we find a way forward in regard to same sex marriage.

At the last C and W gathering at Gympie Muster, Beccy Cole was greeted with a standing ovation. Cowboys didn't care who she slept with.

These are the reasons why I consider a plebiscite the better way to settle the same sex marriage dilemma.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 06:42
If the likes of the ACL are so respectful why do they want to suspend anti-discrimination legislation during the plebiscite? The likes of Christensen are showing respect by openly equating homosexuality and paedophilia, and saying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice?

The "think of the children" arguments are respectful? "Sorry, you shouldn't be allowed to raise children"?

Is it any wonder the supporters of SSM get a little upset by such arguments that largely boil down to justifications of "I don't like what you are and you don't deserve the same rights as me" along with "my big book of <insert name of deity> pithy quotes says you're an abomination".

Given a plebiscite is just an opinion poll with a 100% sample size why don't we just hold an opinion poll instead and save a $150million? A suitably large sample size would give 99%+ accuracy for a fraction of the cost and could be used in exactly the same way as the results from a plebiscite. Howard didn't use a plebiscite to change the law in the first place, why does it need one now?

Eddie Dean
20th Sep 2016, 07:14
Questions, questions so many questions grasshopper.

Respect for you seems to be only a one way street, with a refusal to neither understand nor respect a counter view point.

I doubt that section 18C will be suspended anytime soon.

One could do an opinion poll in the areas that I travel and get over 80% against same sex marriage, would that satisfy you?

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Sep 2016, 07:23
"my big book of <insert name of deity> pithy quotes says you're an abomination".



Given the above I am still confused as to why same sex couples are seeking to marry in church?

david1300
20th Sep 2016, 07:45
Eddie, how would you feel if you were told you couldn't marry an adult of your choosing by a pompous moralising minority? It's not nice to impose your values on someone else when they aren't trying to impose anything on you. ...

But they do that to us all the time. I couldn't marry my sister even if we both said we have an enduring love and have so much in common.

And why do you have to be so denigrating in you language towards our lawmakers (after all, they are also a pompous moralising minority).

Come to think of it, I recall they wouldn't let me marry my first cousin either. And recently a man was criminalised for marrying his adult daughter, and a woman criminalised for marrying her adult son who had been given up for adoption as a baby.

Now you might say this is a good thing, as these unions have a high likelihood of producing children with physical and mental issues. Well if we want marriages to produce only 'perfect' children then it stands to reason that any marriage that cannot produce children should not be condoned. Or doesn't it?

Pontius Navigator
20th Sep 2016, 08:00
David, you could go on, inter-faith marriage is banned, choosing your partner is banned, inter-racial marriage if not banned is very much abhorred.

I am not saying ALL but is certainly the case in many countries, cultures, religions and races.

The Catholic church has rules for inter-faint marriage. Scotland has faiths that do not tolerate other Christian sects such as Catholics.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 08:44
Eddie, SSM supporters aren't trying impose anything on anyone - no-one will be forced into a homosexual relationship. They are just asking to be given something. It will have zero impact on anyone else but those wishing to participate in SSM. They are in no way interfering with the rights and religious beliefs of other.

Those who oppose SSM are imposing their religious and other beliefs on others. They are seeking to control the behaviour of others.

Such a poll would be in no way reflective of the views of wider society - be sensible.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 08:46
SFFP, I doubt many same-sex couples do want do get married in a church and is nothing to do with the SSM debate in Australia.

Hempy
20th Sep 2016, 08:54
The ACL make me laugh. They are all up in arms about people of the same sex who, in a loving relationship, wish to have that relationship legitimised in the eyes of the law, yet they remain completely silent on the issue of priests fiddling young boys behind the altar. Hypocrites.

Royal commission: Abuse allegations too vague to report to police, Catholic Church official says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/abuse-allegations-too-vague-to-report-to-police-priest-says/7862462?pfmredir=sm)

Ogre
20th Sep 2016, 09:17
I have to say I have no objection to whatever you want to classify yourself as in terms of your gender / persuasion, but what I object to is not being allowed to have my opinion if it differs from the loudest one.

I happen to not be in favour of SSM, don't ask me to explain because I probably could not come up with a decent reason to justify the decision in the eyes of the fervent, but if the majority of the population decide otherwise then so be it. Maybe I'm just being grumpy, maybe I'm just reluctant to give up something I've lived with all my life. However if I express that opinion then I am cast out and castigated as an evil bigoted hater of everything <insert group of choice>. I am seen as being someone who denies others their "rights" (although I have yet to see exactly where these "rights" are documented).

I distrust surveys of any kind, the first question I always have is what sample set did they use? How many people sampled just wanted to be left alone, how many just gave the answer they thought the surveyor wanted, and how much was the data processed before the answer was delivered?

So if the Australian government wants to put it to the vote of the people, then so be it. As someone said, if 80% of the voters want it then no politician would deny them, currently I think no politician would vote against it if they wanted to get re-elected!

However, like the Scottish independence referendum, if the people vote and the answer is no, the pro-voters will claim all sorts of shenanigans and demand another vote, and another and another until they get the answer they want.

We appear to be in a time when democracy depends on who shouts loudest.

Expatrick
20th Sep 2016, 09:27
ORAC - A Ń E … I Õ O ” ÷ Ő U ŕ ‹ Ű - & they all count, if you know what I mean!

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 09:47
Ogre, what are you being asked to give up? Absolutely nothing. There will be precisely zero change for those in opposite-sex marriages, none at all. You're being asked to give something meaningful to a group of people who currently don't have it.

What is wrong with continuing to ask? Societies change. Homosexuality was illegal in Tasmania until 1997.

david1300
20th Sep 2016, 09:55
Eddie, SSM supporters aren't trying impose anything on anyone ... It will have zero impact on anyone else but those wishing to participate in SSM. They are in no way interfering with the rights and religious beliefs of other...

No, that isn't true. There are threats against marriage celebrants that they will not be able to refuse to marry same sex couples or be deregistered. Wasn't there a recent case of a cake shop that was prosecuted for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple.

Yes, these might seem to be trivial issues to some, but they still are examples of SSM supporters actively wanting to impose their will on others.

Ogre
20th Sep 2016, 10:05
le Pingouin, you're right I am giving up nothing. But then it was never mine to give so what gives me the right to change it?

My main objection however is to the way I'm being rail-roaded into giving it!

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 10:18
Replace same-sex with inter-racial and you'll see why that should be the case. It's called discrimination. The celebrant isn't being asked to do anything to themselves that's against their beliefs so can't use religion as a basis to object.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 10:24
Ogre, in that case we get rail-roaded all the time by politicians. How is this any different?

How was it never yours to give? It's a legal definition so has always been ours to give.

Ogre
20th Sep 2016, 10:47
le Pingouin, I disagree, "rail roaded" is defined as "rush or coerce into doing something", normal politics is not usually influenced by as much public outcry and pressure.

Marriage is indeed a legal definition, if I am unhappy with a legal definition then I can advocate to change it through democratic processes. But the choice to do so is mine!

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 11:12
And that's exactly what people are doing - advocating for change. Assuming the polls are correct and SSM has on the order of 80% support then how are you being rail-roaded? That support hasn't just suddenly sprung from nowhere as the result of current discussion but has been building over time. SSM might not have been discussed until recently in the places you frequent but has been discussed for a considerable time in other places.

Ogre
20th Sep 2016, 11:30
le Pingouin, "Assuming the polls are correct", Hmm.

If there is this level of support why do they need me? If there is this overwhelming level of support why is my opposition so important to people?

The subject has been discussed around me, and including me, and the discussion has been rational and polite. Opinions have been offered, points have been raised, and at the end of the day differences have been accepted and no rancour or ill feeling left.

It's not an all or nothing vote, merely a majority. Why then are you so intent on my being in agreement?

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Sep 2016, 11:34
SFFP, I doubt many same-sex couples do want do get married in a church and is nothing to do with the SSM debate in Australia.
It's certainly the way it has gone over here in the UK.

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Sep 2016, 11:37
And that's exactly what people are doing - advocating for change. Assuming the polls are correct and SSM has on the order of 80% support then how are you being rail-roaded? That support hasn't just suddenly sprung from nowhere as the result of current discussion but has been building over time. SSM might not have been discussed until recently in the places you frequent but has been discussed for a considerable time in other places.

Do you think the support is 'genuine' or simply given because it is no longer acceptable to voice any other opinion that acceptance, point in case the current discussion with Ogre.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 11:44
They don't "need" you but at the same time why can't they try to convince you to change your view? That's exactly what advocates on both sides are doing. It's up to you whether you join in the discussion. I'm not intent on anything other than putting my view on SSM and my view on the arguments against.

"Assuming the polls are correct" - what else am I meant to say? They're just an opinion poll that's indicative, rather than definitive.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 11:59
SFFP, since when is having a discussion with someone stopping them having an opinion? Why can't I express my thoughts on his opinion? I haven't been insulting, belittling or deriding. I'm not telling him he can't have an opinion.

Yes, I do think that support is genuine.

In Australia the large majority of weddings are civil - only 1/4 have a religious celebrant.

3310.0 - Marriages and Divorces, Australia, 2014 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0)

"It's certainly the way it has gone over here in the UK." - I'd be interested in seeing something indicating the actual extent.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 12:15
The church things is irrelevant to the SSM debate in Australia anyway as it's entirely about the legal side of things. Whether a particular denomination wants change their religious rites is up to them.

Ogre
20th Sep 2016, 12:34
le Pingouin, I'm not intent on anything other than putting my view on SSM and my view on the arguments against. I have not made any arguments against, merely the fact that I disagreed.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 12:52
I did say "the" not "your" arguments against.

Geordie_Expat
20th Sep 2016, 13:11
I seem to remember some (many) years ago someone (I think it was Lord Hailsham) commented:


"It used to be banned, then it became acceptable. I'm leaving before it becomes compulsory".

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 13:24
And did he follow through? I do hope so.

Expatrick
20th Sep 2016, 13:35
[QUOTE]
We appear to be in a time when democracy depends on who shouts loudest/QUOTE]

But not all are allowed to shout...

[QUOTE]Do you think the support is 'genuine' or simply given because it is no longer acceptable to voice any other opinion that acceptance, point in case the current discussion with Ogre./QUOTE]

Precisely.

Geordie_Expat
20th Sep 2016, 13:37
Le P:


Oh come on !! Lighten up. Does your sexual orientation require you to have a sense-of-humour bypass ? Stephen Fry seems to manage.

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 13:49
Sorry, dry humour doesn't translate to text very well. Is there something I should be telling my wife?

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 13:51
Expatrick, the opponents of SSM are doing a very good job of shouting their message down here in Aus. They get plenty of media coverage.

Expatrick
20th Sep 2016, 13:55
The British Embassy in Hungary will marry British same sex couples (thus cirvumventing local law) but will not marry (British) opposite sex couples, discrimination?

Geordie_Expat
20th Sep 2016, 13:57
The British Embassy in Hungary will marry British same sex couples (thus cirvumventing local law) but will not marry (British) opposite sex couples, discrimination?


I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my post 107.:D

Expatrick
20th Sep 2016, 13:57
Le P, I apologise, my post related to my perception of the situation in the UK. I have no experience of the picture in Australia. I should have made that clear.

Expatrick
20th Sep 2016, 14:17
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my post 107.:D

Thank you!

le Pingouin
20th Sep 2016, 14:26
ExPat, no problems, I mentioned Aus as my comments on SSM are specifically related to the current situation down here.

The British Consulates here do a roaring trade:

Gay wedding at British consulate exploits legal loophole for same-sex marriage (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gay-wedding-at-british-consulate-exploits-legal-loophole-for-samesex-marriage-20160819-gqwyqd.html)

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Sep 2016, 21:01
SFFP, since when is having a discussion with someone stopping them having an opinion? Why can't I express my thoughts on his opinion? I haven't been insulting, belittling or deriding. I'm not telling him he can't have an opinion.



Correct, but as he suggests why are you so keen to change/challenge his opinion?

Flight_Idle
20th Sep 2016, 21:07
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but if the Captain of a ship can marry people, can the Captain of an aircraft marry people?

How large the ship? How large the aircraft? I guess it must be in writing somewhere.

I'm guessing that the Gosport ferry, or a holder of a PPL would not 'Cut the mustard in this regard, yet the regulations must be somewhere.

I should google it I guess, but feeling a little lazy at the moment.

Eddie Dean
20th Sep 2016, 21:15
WIFE = Washing Ironing F--king Etcetera?
Is that the wife you mean?
Or are there two Grooms in your relationship?

Discussion on Q and A
Q&A: 'Thanks for nothing': Magda Szubanski and Fiona Nash clash (http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/qanda-thanks-for-nothing-magda-szubanski-and-fiona-nash-clash/ar-BBwm1an)

Civil union is recognised in every state in Australia - with the same rights as marriage.

Lord Alfred Douglas' "the love that dare not speak its name", has become the love that will not shut its mouth.

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2016, 21:16
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but if the Captain of a ship can marry people, can the Captain of an aircraft marry people?

How large the ship? How large the aircraft? I guess it must be in writing somewhere.

Yes/no/maybe:- Can pilots preform marriage ceremony in the air? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-497823.html)

Flight_Idle
20th Sep 2016, 22:12
Thank you for the link G-CPTN, most educational. I normally lurk on here, but saw one of my favourite posters there 'Fox 3'

le Pingouin
21st Sep 2016, 07:24
SFFP, this is an open forum to discuss matters that are raised. I'm discussing. Simple as that.

Eddie, my sexuality is neither here nor there. I won't be offended either way. I'm just sorry you feel a minority can't seek equality. It's not that long ago that poofter bashing was an acceptable pastime in some circles.

Eddie Dean
21st Sep 2016, 08:17
SFFP, this is an open forum to discuss matters that are raised. I'm discussing. Simple as that.

Eddie, my sexuality is neither here nor there. I won't be offended either way. I'm just sorry you feel a minority can't seek equality. It's not that long ago that poofter bashing was an acceptable pastime in some circles.Where did I state a minority cannot seek equality?
From your postings, you are not discussing, but merely carrying on a monologue without trying to see others viewpoint.
You appear to be like a Blackman demanding to join the Klu Klux Klan and refusing to understanding their ethics.

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st Sep 2016, 08:31
SFFP, this is an open forum to discuss matters that are raised. I'm discussing. Simple as that.


I am not sure that 'I'm right your wrong' defines discussion.

le Pingouin
21st Sep 2016, 08:41
Eddie, this comment: "Lord Alfred Douglas' "the love that dare not speak its name", has become the love that will not shut its mouth".

Things don't change when people keep their mouths shut.

If it's a monologue it's because none of you are actually saying anything to discuss.

I'm not trying to join anything. KKK? Same-sex attracted people are already part of society so they aren't trying to join anything either. How about you explain your take on things and then we can have a discussion.

le Pingouin
21st Sep 2016, 08:43
SFFP, tell me why I'm wrong then? Counter my views? Tell me what your views are?

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st Sep 2016, 09:14
My views are quite simple, both of the following statements should be allowed to be made openly and honestly.

Being gay is normal and perfectly natural.

Being gay is normal and perfectly natural but the thought of two guys kissing and having sex disgusts me and I would rather gargle with bleach than try that myself.

Perfectly open and honest thoughts that most heterosexual men would have but only one of the above is politically correct and therefore only one of the above is generally used.

Which is why the LGBT community will never ever know if it is truly accepted in society, if open and honest discussion is so frowned upon making it 'impolite' to speak truthfully ACTUAL opinion will never be known.

Proof of that is clear in this thread.

I should add for honesty that only the first statement applies to me.

Ogre
21st Sep 2016, 09:29
SFFP - :D

Le Pingouin tell me why I'm wrong then? Counter my views? Tell me what your views are?

Yesterday you and I debated my post, with you repeatedly asking me what I was giving up and countering my responses, today you are practically goading SFFP into a debate on his views with the implication that they will differ from yours and allow you to press forward on your agenda

Congratulations, you have justified why so many people with opposing views don't say a thing, because as soon as they express a different opinion someone will take it as a challenge. :ugh:

Perhaps I should gather together with other like minded people, start demanding rights as a minority, maybe even organise some marches.....:E

Eddie Dean
21st Sep 2016, 10:06
Eddie, this comment: "Lord Alfred Douglas' "the love that dare not speak its name", has become the love that will not shut its mouth".

Things don't change when people keep their mouths shut.

If it's a monologue it's because none of you are actually saying anything to discuss.

I'm not trying to join anything. KKK? Same-sex attracted people are already part of society so they aren't trying to join anything either. How about you explain your take on things and then we can have a discussion.Refer post 81 for my take on things.
You sir are either obtuse or truly are ignorant and have no ability to enter into an intelligent discussion.
You pick one line out of others contribution and misconstrue it to bolster some weird agenda.

Expatrick
21st Sep 2016, 10:17
Sorry guys, but I'm having trouble keeping up. Apparently, the new spectrum is LGBTQI. What does Q mean?

Back to the OP.

My issue is that those of us who are not part of this group seem expected to keep up with the proliferation of terminology, lest we fall into the "Cumberbatch trap" & are subsequently pilloried & branded as "***phobic" - when we are no such thing.

Pontius Navigator
21st Sep 2016, 11:26
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but if the Captain of a ship can marry people, can the Captain of an aircraft marry people?

How large the ship? How large the aircraft? I guess it must be in writing somewhere.

I'm guessing that the Gosport ferry, or a holder of a PPL would not 'Cut the mustard in this regard, yet the regulations must be somewhere.

I should google it I guess, but feeling a little lazy at the moment.
The Captain of a ship may conduct a marriage if the country of registration so permits. The Captain of the P&O Azure was not permitted while she had British registration. Once she was registered in Bermuda then he was.

Expatrick
21st Sep 2016, 12:08
Back to the OP.

My issue is that those of us who are not part of this group seem expected to keep up with the proliferation of terminology, lest we fall into the "Cumberbatch trap" & are subsequently pilloried & branded as "***phobic" - when we are no such thing.

I have just been told we have to add an M to the list! No idea what it means!

le Pingouin
21st Sep 2016, 20:28
SFFP, replace gay with black in your "being.....is normal and perfectly natural" piece there and what do you get? "The thought of a mixed race couple kissing and having sex disgusts me" - a common view in plenty of places in the not too distant past. Most of society has moved on, as they will with LGBT.

le Pingouin
21st Sep 2016, 20:36
Eddie, if I had an agenda why would I be expounding it here?

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st Sep 2016, 22:43
SFFP, replace gay with black in your "being.....is normal and perfectly natural" piece there and what do you get? "The thought of a mixed race couple kissing and having sex disgusts me" - a common view in plenty of places in the not too distant past. Most of society has moved on, as they will with LGBT.

Simple obfuscation and avoiding the point in case, I reiterate how can you ever know if LGBT ETC are truly accepted whenever discussion is "shut down" by the minorities that shout loudest?

Point to ponder...

LG folk would consider the heterosexual "act" to be Urgh which I absolutely understand and accept, why would they as it is totally foreign and not something they would ever do.

How come I am not allowed to articulate that way?

I only selected LG as BT etc are not necessarily limited.

The above is no reflection on my sexuality :ok:

racedo
21st Sep 2016, 23:13
"The thought of a mixed race couple kissing and having sex disgusts me" - a common view in plenty of places in the not too distant past. Most of society has moved on, as they will with LGBT.

Colleague where I was working grew up in Somalia, only started wearing the Dishdash after getting married last year.......................very open minded.

Current place working is mixed with foreigners..................... Irish guy started the "Are you not making tea for me cos I is Irish"..................... and it got worse since then :), nothing off limits.

Female HR Director visiting office and Irish guy just says to Somalian girl .................... you really need to lose half a leg and become a lesbian.

She justs says WTF and asks why and he blurts out well then HR could tick the box of having a Lesbian Disabled Black Muslim Female Refugee working here all in one and they would be happy making their quota.

HR went pale left quickly, it was kind of hard to do any work for 15 minutes as laughing so much while guy got battered with the cuddly teddy the lady has on her desk.

HR manager came next day suggesting diversity training for all for 2 hrs that day, have never seen a complete boycott of training by all.

Big boss came down, saw happy office and doing way better than supposed to do so he went out and brought Krispy Kremes Donuts and Coffees................. only question he really wanted answering was who had said lose leg and become a lesbian, he in car when message told to him by HR and had to stop because crying with laughter.

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st Sep 2016, 23:20
Colleague where I was working grew up in Somalia, only started wearing the Dishdash after getting married last year.......................very open minded.

Current place working is mixed with foreigners..................... Irish guy started the "Are you not making tea for me cos I is Irish"..................... and it got worse since then :), nothing off limits.

Female HR Director visiting office and Irish guy just says to Somalian girl .................... you really need to lose half a leg and become a lesbian.

She justs says WTF and asks why and he blurts out well then HR could tick the box of having a Lesbian Disabled Black Muslim Female Refugee working here all in one and they would be happy making their quota.

HR went pale left quickly, it was kind of hard to do any work for 15 minutes as laughing so much while guy got battered with the cuddly teddy the lady has on her desk.

HR manager came next day suggesting diversity training for all for 2 hrs that day, have never seen a complete boycott of training by all.

Big boss came down, saw happy office and doing way better than supposed to do so he went out and brought Krispy Kremes Donuts and Coffees................. only question he really wanted answering was who had said lose leg and become a lesbian, he in car when message told to him by HR and had to stop because crying with laughter.

My time in the RAF was like this, absolutely merciless however 'civilian life' for me has been a succession of 'you can't say that' moments :ok:

Brian Abraham
22nd Sep 2016, 05:29
As far as I'm aware, where I reside, same sex couples have the same rights as the time long traditional married. The traditional couple, when it comes to form filling, are asked "married" or "defacto". If all are to be deemed "married" will the form now ask something along the lines of "sex of partner", additional to the "married" and "defacto"?

Personally, my inclination is to keep the "married" as a term for the traditional, and come up with another term to define a same sex union. What that term may be I'm at a loss. Perhaps,

de iure [deː ˈjuːrɛ]; lit. 'from law') means 'a state of affairs that is in accordance with law'

And please, do not take anything I've posted as against same sex couples, know many, some family, and all are folks to be admired and held as examples for all to follow in their conduct.

Hempy
22nd Sep 2016, 07:56
Personally, my inclination is to keep the "married" as a term for the traditional, and come up with another term to define a same sex union. What that term may be I'm at a loss.

umm Gayried?

ORAC
22nd Sep 2016, 08:16
racedo, your story may be correct, but then again some in the office might not have been as happy as they had to make out to be.

The excuse given for a vast majority of the malicious jokes, misogynistic, racialist and homophobic behaviour with which bullies are accused is, "it was just a joke".

le Pingouin
22nd Sep 2016, 12:18
Brian, those who support SSM don't see the purpose in having a separate label, in that if it is functionally and legally identical then having a separate label is serving some other purpose. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc.

And before anyone raises the subject of children, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children and the inability to have children is not a barrier to marriage.

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Sep 2016, 17:03
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc.


Trouble is it's not a duck, which is the root cause of the problem.

racedo
22nd Sep 2016, 19:20
[racedo, your story may be correct, but then again some in the office might not have been as happy as they had to make out to be.

The excuse given for a vast majority of the malicious jokes, misogynistic, racialist and homophobic behaviour with which bullies are accused is, "it was just a joke".

Given the wide variety of races, genders, and lifestyles choices in the office the banter is stretching................. simple rule agreed by all, if someone objects then apologise, no questions asked nor explanations allowed.

It works with the people there simply because it does.

However once people move in and out it will change.

le Pingouin
22nd Sep 2016, 20:21
Trouble is it's not a duck, which is the root cause of the problem.

That's only true if your definition of "duck" is "mallard". That is the root cause of the problem.

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Sep 2016, 20:27
There already is a long time accepted definition for a 'duck', problem is that a few want to alter that description to include another variety so to speak.

ORAC
22nd Sep 2016, 20:36
Well fire water and "quack" medicine have been around for. Long time...

le Pingouin
22nd Sep 2016, 21:02
The best information we have here in Aus is that a majority (well more than 50% + 1) are willing to accept the broadened definition.

This is probably the most recent indication: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/election-2016-vote-compass-same-sex-marriage/7520478

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Sep 2016, 21:24
Willing to accept because they fully agree with it or willing to accept because to speak out against is socially unacceptable?

Now that is something you will never know

le Pingouin
22nd Sep 2016, 21:51
You will never know either. Why would people hold back in an anonymous Internet survey on our national broadcaster? True, it's self-selecting but it's also consistent with phone polling.

Brian Abraham
23rd Sep 2016, 01:49
We are told that a majority of the population agree with the same sex proposal, but they bring up the, to me, fallacious argument that holding a plebiscite would cost too much ($160M). It's a tip in the bucket when one considers the manner in which governments really do waste money. If you are so sure that a majority agree with your POV why prevent a plebiscite? It seems to me that they are really not sure that they would gain the necessary support when it came to the crunch, and are reluctant to go down that route.

I recognise I'm an old fart with one foot in the grave, and probably a millstone around the neck of progress. The kids/partners, early 30's, couldn't care less about the topic.

I've obviously missed something in the news cycle as this appeared in the national paper two days ago. Don't have a clue to what incident/event it refers.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 05:44
You will never know either.

Which is a pretty sad state of affairs.

B Fraser
23rd Sep 2016, 06:10
The excuse given for a vast majority of the malicious jokes, misogynistic, racialist and homophobic behaviour with which bullies are accused is, "it was just a joke".


While this is true, I am unsure of the accepted definition of where a joke becomes a malicious joke. There is the obvious far end of the spectrum where Bernard Manning would go for shock value. Let's not go there.


For example, let's look at "How do you know when you have been visited by a gay burglar ? You come home to find someone has tidied up and there is a quiche in the oven". The joke plays on stereotypes but not in a way that I can see any malice. It infers that gay people tend to be tidy and cook a lot. I think it is safe to say that these are two traits that in isolation would be judged to be positive.


Far stronger material can be heard from Julian Clary, Steven Fry and Sandi Toksvig on radio 4. The puzzling thing is that they can tell jokes that I would be castigated for if I told them at work. I guess it is the same as brown people using the infamous N word. They can say it but I cannot. I have no cause to use the word but if I did, I would be judged by the colour of my skin which happens to be a light tan rather than a dark one.


The world's gone mad.

le Pingouin
23rd Sep 2016, 06:36
Brian, parliament is trusted to make decisions on our behalf for things that have far more significant impact such as sending young people off to die in war, or signing our rights away with the TPP in honour of multinational business so why not for SSM? Particularly given the results won't even be binding on parliament. Spend the $175M (including the $15M campaign funding) on hospitals, education, pensioners, hell, stashing it under the mattress is a better use.

That disgraceful cartoon is a perfect example of the problem with holding a plebiscite - it will draw the haters out. Homosexuals were one of the groups specifically persecuted by the Nazis and Bill Leak seems to think those who oppose SSM are being similarly treated. Maybe he should have included pictures of Bernardi and Shelton wearing pink triangles.

The reality is the best points they're bringing to the SSM debate are variations of "I don't like it" and "we've always done it this way" with minimal arguments to back up those points. Is it any wonder they're being out debated? It's nothing to do with being shut down, they just have very little to actually say.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 07:29
The reality is the best points they're bringing to the SSM debate are variations of "I don't like it" and "we've always done it this way" with minimal arguments to back up those points. Is it any wonder they're being out debated? It's nothing to do with being shut down, they just have very little to actually say.

If you genuinely think that the majority are being out debated on this subject you probably need to think again, the majority have been quite effectively gagged by the modern day PC thinking that makes it now totally socially unacceptable to have anything but the party line thoughts on this, and several other subjects.

If you were to ask any 'straight' men or women for their thoughts on homosexuality in my experience the very best answer you are going to get is along the lines of 'what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors is their business'.

That is not acceptance and its probably not even tolerance, it's more resignation I would suggest. I have yet hear any 'straight' person utter the words 'the love between two men/women is a beautiful thing' because to 'straight' people its not.

I should qualify that with it's the sexual act that 'straight' people find the most difficult accept, for straight people that is utterly unnatural. The exact same can be said of gay and lesbian men and women as for them the heterosexual act is equally as distasteful.

There simply is no open and honest debate on this and many other subjects. If you really want to screw with friends minds throw Islam into the conversation and watch the discomfort as they try rationalise the expected notion of peace and tolerance with what is going on globally. My particular favourite is if 99.9% of all muslims are peace loving and as of 2010 there were 1.6 billion muslims globally how many bad guys is that?

Then for even more fun throw Islam into the conversation with the LG community and with the dichotomy of trying align the religion of peace and tolerance with that religions utter intolerance of LG community, do you ever thing you will see a SSM in a mosque?

le Pingouin
23rd Sep 2016, 07:36
The debate is SSM, not homosexuality.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 07:44
They are not linked in anyway? Really?

Eddie Dean
23rd Sep 2016, 07:51
While this is true, I am unsure of the accepted definition of where a joke becomes a malicious joke. ..........

For example, let's look at "How do you know when you have been visited by a gay burglar ? You come home to find someone has tidied up and there is a quiche in the oven". The joke plays on stereotypes but not in a way that I can see any malice. It infers that gay people tend to be tidy and cook a lot. I think it is safe to say that these are two traits that in isolation would be judged to be positive.

Far stronger material can be heard from Julian Clary, Steven Fry and Sandi Toksvig on radio 4. The puzzling thing is that they can tell jokes that I would be castigated for if I told them at work. ..,.,:.::
The world's gone mad.I remember that being Vietnamese doing homework and laundry and wasn't malicious.

le Pingouin
23rd Sep 2016, 08:34
Of course they're linked but the debate is whether SSM should be legalised or not. It's not a debate about the merits or otherwise of homosexuality nor what people think about homosexuality.

Ogre
23rd Sep 2016, 09:45
Le Pingouin,

The debate is SSM, not homosexuality.

So please explain why you have:

In post 92 tell us that Homosexuality was illegal in Tasmania until 1997;
In post 123 make reference to "poofter bashing";
In post 154 talked about the persecution of Homosexuals.

That makes three occasions you have attempted to drag people into an argument by making references to homosexuality

Tell me this, if SSM and homosexuality are unrelated, how many non-homosexuals will be lining up to get hitched?

Exactly how many SSM ceremonies do you expect to see in Australia in the next, oh lets say 5 years? (and for a bonus point, how many different sex marriages do you reckon we will see in the same period?)

On the assumption that the law is changed to allow SSM, will the law on divorce also need to be changed?

le Pingouin
23rd Sep 2016, 10:31
How is mentioning the way society has treated homosexuals in any way talking about homosexual activity? They are different things.

Given there will just be "marriage" without reference to gender of the participants there will be probably be more than this year.

Why does the number matter? There have been something like 300 in British Consulates in Australia in the last two years. So given that one of the participants has to be a British citizen I'd expect the number to be considerably more if it becomes legal here.

I have no idea if the divorce law is gender specific and would require amendment. Why would it present an insurmountable impediment to SSM?

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 12:02
Of course they're linked but the debate is whether SSM should be legalised or not. It's not a debate about the merits or otherwise of homosexuality nor what people think about homosexuality.

If you accept the inextricable link but don't understand the implications of that in the decision making process of many heterosexual people then maybe a more open minded approach is required.

Marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and a women, invariably in the eyes of God with the expectation they will procreate.

As SSM can neither procreate or be blessed in the eye of God some would question it's purpose and relevance, in fact for many people the earlier analogy of a black man seeking to join the KKK resonates strongly which begs the question, Why?

le Pingouin
23rd Sep 2016, 12:52
Marriage may have traditionally been that but very definitely no longer is in Australia. We're well past that. Neither God nor any other deity has anything to do with marriage in Australia - show me where in the Marriage Act 1961 that a deity is invoked. Only 1/4 of marriages in Australia involve a religious celebrant and there very definitely is no requirement that you be able to procreate.

It seems to me you're clinging to a model of marriage that ceased being relevant to the majority of society a long time ago.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 14:25
I cling to nothing and in amongst that alphabet soup is a letter that belongs to me, main difference between us IMHO is I see and understand both sides of the argument.

racedo
23rd Sep 2016, 18:23
Personally think it is time the state GTF out of marraige, all states.

If people wish to be married then leave it to religious groups.

State taxation systems provide no benefits for married people nor any rights, therefore all citizens treated equally.

If people have children then subject to father being on birth certificate then father has rights including visitation that cannot be changed unless by court order.

On death unless a will being made the persons estate goes to the state unless there are children in which case 50% split evenly between all children where person is on birth certificate, rest goes to state. A will changes this.

In event of separation 50% of assets earned since couple together split evenly and 50% used to provide for children unless an agreement in place, any agreement that provides less than 20% of Assets is null and void.

obgraham
24th Sep 2016, 00:07
Racedo: what if father refuses to be listed on the birth certificate.

A very common occurrence, believe me.

Brian Abraham
24th Sep 2016, 02:32
That disgraceful cartoon is a perfect example of the problem with holding a plebiscite - it will draw the haters outI find that a puerile argument, with all due respect. In any argument there will be those who go over board and vent their spleen. I remember the Vietnam national servicemen turning up at recruiting for induction being vilified by the anti war brigade. No one in the community stood up for them, besides family, so on that front, cry me a river. And what does tend to make me less than sympathetic to their cause is the claim that I'm homophobic, for the mere fact that I don't embrace their cause whole heartedly.

Ogre
24th Sep 2016, 04:24
Brian Abraham

And what does tend to make me less than sympathetic to their cause is the claim that I'm homophobic, for the mere fact that I don't embrace their cause whole heartedly.

And we're back to the "with us or agin us" attitude that seems to prevail in so many cases. The pro- camp are very vocal with their demands, but try and disagree and you will be shouted down with no end of accusations.

Perhaps there would be better support for SSM if the pro- campaign rationally and politely outlined their case, listened to the opposition and countered it with reasoned argument rather than screaming on every plane possible that it's not fair and they demand their rights.

And exactly what right is it they are not getting? Where is it written that it is a right the pro- SSM campaign are being deprived?

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 04:39
Brian, when was the last time a Christian was assaulted for being a Christian in Australia? When was the last time a Christian was bullied enough for being a Christian to contemplate suicide? People don't feel the need to hide their religion but they feel the need to hide their sexuality. Never heard the word "faggot" used with a real tone of vitriol?

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 04:46
racedo, in Australia marriage is a legal thing. You can have a religious or any other sort of ceremony you want to go with it but on their own they don't constitute a marriage. The legal paperwork is needed for that. 75% of marriages in Australia involve no religious celebrant.

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 04:51
SFFP, what makes you think I don't see or understand both sides? Possibly because I reject the reasons of those opposing SSM as being insufficient and I'm putting forward my own arguments?

Brian Abraham
24th Sep 2016, 06:07
Never heard the word "faggot" used with a real tone of vitriol?Of all the gay people I know (many) I couldn't imagine anyone using such a term in their presence, for the simple reason that on outward appearances you would have no reason to identify their sexuality. A young straight relative was a participant in the Sydney arts and drama scene studying ballet, and lived in house full of gays, none of whom you would so identify. They identified the relative as their "fag hag", and that's about the limit on the language front. Frequented Oxford Street with them on social outings.

There is a section of the gay community who absolutely love (seemingly) to flaunt their sexuality, to which I can understand some people getting upset, and being somewhat vocal in less than pleasant terms. I cringe myself at times, as I do when seeing anyone being a knob. None in my circle feel the need to flaunt their religion, and I have no idea, in the main, if they have a religious bent, nor their sexual preferences, whether they are straight, gay, bi, swing, or anything else. Don't recall ever asking, or feeling the need to ask, a persons sexual preference.

As for suicide, any idea of the number of diggers who committed suicide following Vietnam because of the ostracism they faced after coming home?

Lookleft
24th Sep 2016, 06:13
Brian, when was the last time a Christian was assaulted for being a Christian in Australia?

So LP you didn't hear about the Mecure in Sydney having to cancel a booking from a group who wanted to gather and work on a no strategy? The staff received threats of violence if they went ahead with the booking. So lets not pretend that the Yes campaign automatically takes the moral high ground on this issue. As for the appropriation of youth suicide by Bill Shorten, that is what is wrong with the whole yes campaign. Youth suicide is a blight on society and it is not just caused by a person's sexual orientation. It should not be used as a political football.

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 06:16
I'll ask again. When was the last time a Christian was physically bashed for being a Christian in Australia?

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 06:25
Politicising? Bullying is one of the causes of suicide.

Brian Abraham
24th Sep 2016, 06:33
When was the last time a Christian was physically bashed for being a Christian in AustraliaAnd I'd say get a life, and stop being an emotive drama queen (the word not meant in the terms you'll probably take it). It is these sorts of claims that do your argument no favours, absolutely none, and more reason that people's eyes glaze over, and display a complete lack of interest.

Reasons for suicide abound. Personally I know of three, two were a drug overdose, which may, or may not, have been intentional. The other was a fine young man who lost his apprentice position due to the business folding. On hearing that he had no job, hence no money, the girlfriend immediately dropped him. Devastated about the latter, he jumped in his car and sped off, with his father following. On a bend out of town the lad deliberately drove into a large gum tree, father witnessing.

People get bashed, and killed with coward punches, for all sorts of reasons, just watch your nightly news. Can't say I've seen gays featured for many a year.

B Fraser
24th Sep 2016, 06:34
I'll ask again. When was the last time a Christian was physically bashed


It seems to be encouraged in the UK


http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2008/02/sun-bash-the-bishop.jpg

Ogre
24th Sep 2016, 07:12
When was the last time a Christian was physically bashed for being a Christian in Australia?

Ever been to Cronulla? Frequented the Lindt cafe in Sydney? Both events had a basis along religious lines when men and women from an ostensibly christian country were offered violence just for not being another religion.

I can honestly say I have no interest whatsoever in the sexual orientation of my friends. They are my friends because we share a friendship, I don't go round my social circle ticking off minorities.

When I come home from work and discuss the days events, I don't say "Dave the homosexual from accounts has just come back from holiday and had a great time" or "Kathy the lesbian receptionist was saying the new restaurant in town is really great". Of even that "Tony-the-gender-reassignment-male-to-female-now-called-Sharon is organising the office picnic and wondered if you could give her the name of the shop you got the table cloths from". I will refer to people by name and name alone. The rest is not important

The point I am trying to make is that the SSM campaign are playing the victim, claiming they are being picked on more than every other group and demanding the word give them what they want. People don't like to be bullied that way, some will just do what they are told to stop the complaining, others will get belligerent and push back.

le Pingouin
24th Sep 2016, 07:48
And you guys reckon I'm over the top......

Brian Abraham
24th Sep 2016, 12:05
I'll ask again. When was the last time a Christian was physically bashed for being a Christian in Australia?With that statement, not only are you over the top, but certifiable I'm afraid to say.

Hempy
24th Sep 2016, 14:55
Brian, with all due respect, take your 1950's closemindedness, along with your bigotry, and shove it where the sun doesn't (homosexually) shine.

Tell us your reason as to why you are against SSM. Please.

racedo
24th Sep 2016, 20:32
Racedo: what if father refuses to be listed on the birth certificate.

A very common occurrence, believe me.

No visitation rights, mother no right to seek father financial support.
If mother refuses to put father on that father has right to petition court to have added.

racedo
24th Sep 2016, 20:35
racedo, in Australia marriage is a legal thing. You can have a religious or any other sort of ceremony you want to go with it but on their own they don't constitute a marriage. The legal paperwork is needed for that. 75% of marriages in Australia involve no religious celebrant.

Get state out of having anything to do with how people live together.

Eddie Dean
24th Sep 2016, 20:41
The Gays etc have a life based on a hedonistic and secular ethic.
The mainstream have a life based on religious ethic.

Some believe in an inclusive ethic, others say ethic is exclusive to different groups. I don't see this paradox being resolved soon.

Arm out the window
24th Sep 2016, 21:31
The Gays etc have a life based on a hedonistic and secular ethic.
The mainstream have a life based on religious ethic.


Far too general mate. I'm neither gay nor religious and yet am part of the so-called mainstream - something of a quandary under your definitions.

To add a further level of complexity, I base my actions largely on what's commonly known as the golden rule, which some religious groups seem to believe is their province.

Same sex marriages - go for it, I say, but don't expect some sectors of the religious community to like it, and that's fair enough - some of them believe it's against God's will and you can't tell people what to believe. Marriage doesn't need the church these days.

Eddie Dean
24th Sep 2016, 21:35
Not a matter of being Gay or Religious. It is a matter of not accepting another's viewpoint as valid.
The definition is a summation of the situation rather than my own viewpoint.
Do you consider your ethic more correct than the counter viewpoint, of what value is the counter argument??

Arm out the window
24th Sep 2016, 22:43
The definition is a summation of the situation rather than my own viewpoint.

Not really, Eddie. Your statement classifying 'gays etc' and 'mainstream' into two separate groups clearly says the first is hedonistic and secular, the second is religiously based.

That's opinion, not fact, and it doesn't take much thought to debunk it - can a gay person be religious? You bet. Are some religious people hedonistic? Hell yes (pardon the pun).

My ethic is just what I feel I should do in life to be a good person, and religion doesn't have exclusive rights to that. Counter arguments to mine are fine, just don't tell me what to be or think, or classify me in some group that doesn't really exist (e.g. your religiously based mainstream).

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Sep 2016, 22:58
- can a gay person be religious? You bet.

Define religious?

Is the Bible/New Testament etc being redefined or even re interpreted to somehow include homosexuality as part of 'Gods' work?

If so why is that, have religious leaders suddenly found 'that new way' or is it being forced upon them, as in to stay relative they feel the need to change with the times?

To the best of my knowledge there is no re write of the bible condoning homosexuality........................

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Sep 2016, 23:02
Brian, with all due respect, take your 1950's closemindedness, along with your bigotry, and shove it where the sun doesn't (homosexually) shine.


Brian has a different opinion.

Brian is being told to shut up.

Be like Brian.

Voice your opinion and don't succumb to the PC trolls :ok:

Eddie Dean
24th Sep 2016, 23:10
The Gays etc have a life based on a hedonistic and secular ethic.
The mainstream have a life based on religious ethic
Therefore........... You fill in the conclusion

Ogre
24th Sep 2016, 23:24
Mods - Why don't we have a "like" button like some other media application, cuz SFFP would get one there!

The so called "Christian" views are pretty much universally accepted by a number of religious and non-religious groups, so just because I hold a particular viewpoint does not mean I happen to be in the group "Christian"! (although I don't believe the Quran has a lot of nice things to say about homosexuals, but calling it a "Muslim" view would be contentious for a whole different set of reasons)

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th Sep 2016, 23:31
(although I don't believe the Quran has a lot of nice things to say about homosexuals, but calling it a "Muslim" view would be contentious for a whole different set of reasons)

I threw this into the mix a couple of pages back, if you really want to **** with PC minds link homosexuality and Islam and watch the usual suspects absolutely squirm...........cos there is no link :ok:

Arm out the window
25th Sep 2016, 00:36
To the best of my knowledge there is no re write of the bible condoning homosexuality

Amazing how many religious types think it's fine to f*** little boys then!

Brian Abraham
25th Sep 2016, 02:13
Tell us your reason as to why you are against SSM. PleaseYou really are thick and short on the comprehension front Hempy. If you had taken on board what was written I said the only thing that I had a dislike for was the to me redefinition of the word "marriage". Now if you don't like that you can stick it where the sun don't shine. Other than the word I have absolutely no problem on any front with same the sex issue.

Thanks SFFP for your support. The PC crowd do like to pigeon hole you as Hempy has attempted to do with histake your 1950's closemindedness, along with your bigotry, and shove it where the sun doesn't (homosexually) shineI think it fair to say Hempy has more than a touch of bigotry about him.

le Pingouin
25th Sep 2016, 02:24
How does the fact that 75% of marriages involve no religious celebrant sit with "the mainstream has a life based on the religious ethic"? Strikes me that 75% of marriages are based on personal ethic and you can't make a judgement on whether that's religiously inspired or not. You're simply assuming.

le Pingouin
25th Sep 2016, 02:30
Calling someone "certifiable" is tolerant. That's is some truly [email protected] up thinking.

Lookleft
25th Sep 2016, 04:20
This is how 95% of PC arguments are used:

You're simply assuming the fact that 75% of marriages involve no religious celebrant sit with "the mainstream has a life based on the religious ethic"? Strikes me that 75% of marriages are based on personal ethic and you can't make a judgement on whether that's religiously inspired or not.

The arguments generated only reinforce IMHO why the question of SSM should be in the hands of the Australian public (apologies to those posters who are not Australian) and not the Australian parliament. Too much PC in Parliament for it to be an open discussion such as linking youth suicide to the question and trying to shame people into one way of thinking whether they agree to it or not.

Krystal n chips
25th Sep 2016, 05:59
You really are thick and short on the comprehension front Hempy. If you had taken on board what was written I said the only thing that I had a dislike for was the to me redefinition of the word "marriage". Now if you don't like that you can stick it where the sun don't shine. Other than the word I have absolutely no problem on any front with same the sex issue.

Thanks SFFP for your support. The PC crowd do like to pigeon hole you as Hempy has attempted to do.


I think it fair to say Hempy has more than a touch of bigotry about him

Priceless !....I get the impression Hempy is more than capable of defending himself, but your comment does beg the question.....his " bigotry".....would this be in contrast to say your own conscious bias and reticence to understand societal changes in the 21st century by any chance ?..

If, as you day, it's the term marriage that causes you such angst, what other term would you prefer to define a relationship between same sex couples involving as they do, the same emotional ties and everyday life as straight couples.

Have you ever met and socialised with any at all and do you have friends who are involved in such marriages ?.....have you ever been into gay bars I wonder ?..to save you wondering, I can say yes to both questions....here's a helpful insight...there is no requirement to change your sexual orientation when doing so. The understanding that sexuality is irrelevant, it's the character and personality of the individual which is far more pertinent, also helps.

SSM's were long overdue and thankfully, they are now becoming established in society per se.....:ok:

Equally "amusing" was your heartfelt thanks, clearly a meeting of minds with a kindred spirit, towards SFFP. You have to remember that, he has always worked in an insular and closeted environment and, by his own admission with the inclusion of the " :ok: " emoticon, takes pleasure in making what is defined as "non PC" comments.

Hence any views he has on society have little or no credence.

Yours,

From an open minded inhabitant, and participant in, a cosmopolitan 21st century.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Sep 2016, 07:30
And there we have it folks, 'been for a beer in a gay bar' equates to 'I am an expert on the subject matter' and therefore I can subsequently dismiss all and other alternative opinion as irrelevant.

Classically PC stance, offer no argument and simply decry opposing viewpoints.

Suffice to say Komrad my experience on the 'subject matter' extends quite a bit further than a couple of beers.

Krystal n chips
25th Sep 2016, 10:04
"And there we have it folks, 'been for a beer in a gay bar' equates to 'I am an expert on the subject matter' and therefore I can subsequently dismiss all and other alternative opinion as irrelevant.

You missed out the rather relevant bit about having an open mind as well as working with such couples, or working with one part of a couple, as well as having social contact with such couples. And where do I claim any form of "expertise"...I only made / make factually based comment (s) based on my own experiences .

" Classically PC stance, offer no argument and simply decry opposing viewpoints" .

The basis for negating the "argument" is very simple, notably that bigotry and taking pride in making "non PC comments" as some form of "humour, irrespective of who makes them and in what context is socially unacceptable and downright offensive to the recipients.


Suffice to say Komrad my experience on the 'subject matter' extends quite a bit further than a couple of beers.

I have great difficulty in believing that statement.....however, feel free to enlighten us with your revelations.

racedo
25th Sep 2016, 11:19
Brian has a different opinion.

Brian is being told to shut up.

Be like Brian.

Voice your opinion and don't succumb to the PC trolls http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

:D:D:D:D
Well put Seldom

Those that wish to silence others opinions and viewpoints may find that they are silenced instead.

racedo
25th Sep 2016, 11:27
Amazing how many religious types think it's fine to f*** little boys then!

Think you will find it doesn't.

People use religion as a cover to do what they wish to do.
US Surveys found that abuse by Religious persons was pretty much same % as it was in society as a whole.

Its just that because it is religious it gets the main stream media having a great story.

The idea that it is only "religious" people who abuse is not borne out by ANY statistics as every Child Support charity will tell you. Sexual abuse by Family / Teachers and Sports coaches way out strips this. But collectively you cannot pull all familys together and say its all familys.

Oh as someone who is Catholic I and many of my friends view that Hell has a certain place reserved for those who have abused using Religion as a excuse for doing it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Sep 2016, 13:18
I have great difficulty in believing that statement

So much for having an open mind :p:p:p

Brian Abraham
25th Sep 2016, 13:39
From an open minded inhabitant, and participant in, a cosmopolitan 21st centuryYou are far from that Krystal. Your post simply oozes bigotry and PC superiority. Like Hempy, it's a pity you don't read what is written. The word "marriage" doesn't cause me any angst whatsoever, history is replete with the words having their meaning changed, my view being expressed in my previous,I recognise I'm an old fart with one foot in the grave, and probably a millstone around the neck of progress

Arm out the window
25th Sep 2016, 22:14
The idea that it is only "religious" people who abuse is not borne out by ANY statistics as every Child Support charity will tell you.

That wasn't what I said or meant - I am well aware abuse is rife in all sections of society. However, I don't think it's over the top to say that entrenched, protected and officially denied groups of child abusers have existed quite recently (and may well still do), in quite a few mainstream religious groups.

My comment was in response to SFFP's suggestion that there was pressure on religious leaders to change long-established traditions to accept homosexuality, which struck me as particularly ironic given the tacit acceptance by many church leaders of practices which are far worse than consensual homosexual sex.

This is off topic perhaps, but in my view it's a bit much to get holier-than-thou about the poor old church having to rethink its viewpoint on love between various humans when clearly much more odious and harmful practices have been going on without strong challenges from religious leaders, and probably would have kept on going were it not for the power of traditional and more recently social media in exposing same.

No offence intended to the many honest and good religious people.

racedo
25th Sep 2016, 22:48
No offence intended to the many honest and good religious people.

Offence taken and will evoke and pray Hail Mary for you..................... Catholic so can't do the Jihadi stuff on you:E

Arm out the window
26th Sep 2016, 01:10
:ok:

Certainly beats a blowing up or a beheading!

Arm out the window
26th Sep 2016, 04:13
Long bow indeed to state there was tacit acceptance of boys being abused by church officials.

In late 1993, Broken Rites began researching Monsignor Day. Our investigation led us to a former Victoria Police detective, Denis Ryan, who worked in Mildura in 1962-72. Broken Rites discovered that, in 1971, after Day had been in Mildura for 15 years, Detective Ryan gathered 16 sworn written statements, from 14 boys and two girls at Mildura, detailing how Day had committed sexual crimes against them during the 1960s. The offences included buggery, attempted buggery, indecent assault and gross indecency. Parishioners and police notified Day's boss, Ballarat Bishop Ronald Mulkearns, in 1971-2 about this evidence. But Mulkearns denied that there was any substance in the allegations against Day and he retained Day in the ministry. Thus, the Ballarat diocese managed to keep the lid on the Monsignor Day scandal for two decades … until Broken Rites ended the cover-up.

Not that long a bow (from the Broken Rites website).

vapilot2004
26th Sep 2016, 04:24
Catching up on back episodes of The West Wing there VAP?

You caught me, 11Fan. Factually correct episode as it were and thanks Hempy for pointing that out. I would say that episode is the absolute best dramatic portrayal of the hypocrisy contained in the Judeo-Christian bible.

Fictional President Bartlet points out how far too many 'religious' folk use only the biblical passages they like and conveniently ignore the rest. In addition, for many pious members of the so-called religious right in the states, the lessons of their own Christ figure are callously set aside when it comes to helping others including the sick, the poor, and the aged and they also discard the New Testament ideas of inclusion.

With more and more data coming in regarding physiological evidence of the roots of homosexuality, it stands to reason simple human rights should be extended to those that practice different sexualities than the majority.

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Sep 2016, 07:09
You caught me, 11Fan. Factually correct episode as it were and thanks Hempy for pointing that out. I would say that episode is the absolute best dramatic portrayal of the hypocrisy contained in the Judeo-Christian bible.

Fictional President Bartlet points out how far too many 'religious' folk use only the biblical passages they like and conveniently ignore the rest. In addition, for many pious members of the so-called religious right in the states, the lessons of their own Christ figure are callously set aside when it comes to helping others including the sick, the poor, and the aged and they also discard the New Testament ideas of inclusion.

With more and more data coming in regarding physiological evidence of the roots of homosexuality, it stands to reason simple human rights should be extended to those that practice different sexualities than the majority.

A bit of scripted fiction who's main point is to sensationalise a TV programme is now to be taken as if 'written in tablets of stone'?

I have no real religious leanings one way or the other but that does seem like a bit of a stretch to me.

crablab
26th Sep 2016, 07:31
Can't we all just get along nicely?

It seems to me this is half the problem... ;)

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Sep 2016, 07:47
Trouble is that while tolerance is a two way street its not a divine right.

It's unreasonable to expect everyone to like everything all the time but, as this thread quite succinctly proves there are clearly some subjects where voicing your like/dislike gets you pilloried and brow beaten into silence.

Open and honest debate gets shut down very very quickly when any kind of 'not on message' point is made.

crablab
26th Sep 2016, 08:03
SFFP:

Agreed, but if we can't have a discussion without a riot - what hope do we have?

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Sep 2016, 08:17
Its all about who shouts loudest nowadays, link that to minority opinion and PC talk and you come to understand very quickly how the term 'the silent majority" came to into being.

Hempy
26th Sep 2016, 09:23
Long bow indeed to state there was tacit acceptance of boys being abused by church officials.

The age of consent for anal sex has been lowered to 15 years in Queensland, perhaps modern morality deems this acceptable now.

The wall in Kings Cross Sydney used to be cruised by some from the judiciary and big business - maybe these are some of Krystals friends?

Wow! Three paragraphs with actually no relevence to each other except for homosexuality...

Long bow to draw? Tell that to Cardinal Pell. The only difference between his 'I'm too sick to travel' plea and Christopher Skases is that Skase was actually ill. You'd think if he had nothing to hide from the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse he'd be over here like a rocket in order to protest his and the churches innocence, not dodging it.

Queensland laws? How does this tie into the paedophile priest argument? Got a link?

Actually, Queensland has lowered the age of consent for anal sex to 16, which brings it into line with the age of consent for vaginal sex. Consent being the optimum word..

What that has to do with 12 year olds being forced to perform felatio on Fr. John in the sacristy after Mass is beyond me..

About as much relevence as your Kings Cross witticism. Again....that 'consent' word rears it's ugly head. You think male prostitution is the only form of prostitution that goes on at the Cross? Casting the whole moral issue of prostitution itself aside, what's the difference between the male and female versions?

Do you expect K&C to be insulted by you saying 'maybe these are some of Krystals friends?' It seems like you are being derogatory towards the laywers and businessmen who use prostitutes?

vapilot2004
26th Sep 2016, 09:52
A bit of scripted fiction who's main point is to sensationalise a TV programme is now to be taken as if 'written in tablets of stone'?

I have no real religious leanings one way or the other but that does seem like a bit of a stretch to me.

SffP - apologies if my reference upset your 'purity of source' sensibilities. In serious conversation a TV drama is admittedly a potentially laughable reference to be sure. ;)

However, the bible quotes from the program episode were, in fact, accurate, and the interpretation of the selective use of scripture by conservatives and the right wing to gay bash was also valid and unfortunately remains present in American society here now in the new millennium. We are a bit behind in matters of sex.

Actually, Queensland has lowered the age of consent for anal sex to 16, which brings it into line with the age of consent for vaginal sex.

The original statement by our ED regarding QL law was bothersome at first. This wider view cleared that right up. :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Sep 2016, 10:52
SffP - apologies if my reference upset your 'purity of source' sensibilities. In serious conversation a TV drama is admittedly a potentially laughable reference to be sure. ;)

However, the bible quotes from the program episode were, in fact, accurate, and the interpretation of the selective use of scripture by conservatives and the right wing to gay bash was also valid and unfortunately remains present in American society here now in the new millennium. We are a bit behind in matters of sex.



No offence taken this end and I fully understand how the US leads in many things but with regards to sex and religion, as you say some catching up needs doing.

Here in the UK the SSM thing is now up and running, and rightly so. The only thing left for the shouty people to shout down is the current interpretation of the bible.

Here the Church of England and the Catholic church are exempt from providing SSM however, IMHO for both faiths to remain relevant it is only a matter of time before someone rewrites things to show homosexuality as being acceptable in the eyes of God, I am surprised no-one seems to have picked up on the Mary was a virgin thing and run with that...........be interesting to see how Islam is going to vote :p:p:p

Just for interest sake can you give us an insight to your TV Evangelist thing because this side of the pond it's 'WTF is that all about' :ok:

racedo
26th Sep 2016, 18:14
Here the Church of England and the Catholic church are exempt from providing SSM however, IMHO for both faiths to remain relevant it is only a matter of time before someone rewrites things to show homosexuality as being acceptable in the eyes of God, I am surprised no-one seems to have picked up on the Mary was a virgin thing and run with that...........be interesting to see how Islam is going to vote http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Oh COE have fully accepted SSM jut hasn't sold it in yet as they blow in the wind.................. I worked with son of now departed COE Bishop who on discussion said his Dad said that with RC Church they didn't change no matter what media screamed where as his own changed with whatever was latest fashion, His dad despaired at what was happening.

Doubt RC will have changed much in next 100 years on SSM.

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Sep 2016, 18:41
I agree they accept it but by law are forbidden from carrying them out.

Krystal n chips
27th Sep 2016, 04:38
Can we take it then, that, this was simply a response lacking in substance ( as always ) .....to impress the JB fraternity rather than show the frailties of your knowledge

" Suffice to say Komrad my experience on the 'subject matter' extends quite a bit further than a couple of beers " .

Or, setting a precedent here I know, would you care to answer the request I subsequently posed about enlightening us in this respect.

My stance is clear, as are my personal experiences......yours however....??

" It's unreasonable to expect everyone to like everything all the time but, as this thread quite succinctly proves there are clearly some subjects where voicing your like/dislike gets you pilloried and brow beaten into silence.

Open and honest debate gets shut down very very quickly when any kind of 'not on message' point is made "

It's possibly not a good idea to promote yourself as being some form of "martyr" when it comes to any topic which involves your aversion to "PC" comments, let alone lamenting being "pilloried " for "not being on message".......happens to me frequently and you are only too happy to participate when it does.......although as I have never been one who seeks to ingratiate myself, in any aspect of my life, I have never felt the need to complain...

ED..bless, alas I have never, as yet, set foot on Australia's sunny shores......however, I am seriously engaged in planning a campervan trip from Brisbane-Cairns-Darwin late next year if this helps ?......who knows whom I may meet !

vapilot2004
27th Sep 2016, 06:19
SFFP - I am glad to know things human are reasonably decent and coming along in the UK. I expected as much. We're still working on that wisdom that resides in the collective bones round these parts.


Just for interest sake can you give us an insight to your TV Evangelist thing because this side of the pond it's 'WTF is that all about' :ok:

Ego and greed are the heat, that in the atmosphere of fear, sautťs to perfection stupid people - with a dash of exploiting the vulnerable and lonely thrown in for the bitter hint before the final note.

Arm out the window
27th Sep 2016, 06:47
Looks like someone's removed a post or posts up above, which may affect the flow of the conversation somewhat!

Hempy
27th Sep 2016, 08:56
..however, I am seriously engaged in planning a campervan trip from Brisbane-Cairns-Darwin late next year if this helps ?

The Top End only really has two seasons, the 'wet' and the 'dry'. The wet season equates roughly to the Southern Hemisphere summer i.e. approx November til April. Unless you are in a 4wd campervan my tip is to plan your trip for mid-year (Aug/Sep/Oct), because the available roads become limited in the monsoon season and there's a lot of interesting places you won't be able to access.

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Sep 2016, 10:19
SFFP - I am glad to know things human are reasonably decent and coming along in the UK. I expected as much. We're still working on that wisdom that resides in the collective bones round these parts.


Still a long way to go over here, when you have the two main churches, and of course Islam all exempt from SSM you know there are still millions of minds that need enlightening so to speak.

This is a pretty poor analogy but it does make the point in case.

My daughter does not like tomatoes, she has never liked them and never will like them irrespective of how many other people tell her they are lovely. I and others accept that as her choice and move on without any demands on her for an explanation or justification for her chosen preferences.

Its a crying shame that so many other subjects , as shown by this and many similar threads cannot cannot be dealt with in that manner.

Why does everyone have to be accepting of things they don't actually want to accept?

Brian Abraham
27th Sep 2016, 13:17
I am seriously engaged in planning a campervan trip from Brisbane-Cairns-Darwin late next year if this helps ?......who knows whom I may meet ! If that is the case you'll passing by 466.53 metres from my humble abode. You're more than welcome to stop by and break bread, and partake of your favourite poison - must be beer or wine, none of that fancy upper shelf liquor.Its a crying shame that so many other subjects , as shown by this and many similar threads cannot cannot be dealt with in that manner.

Why does everyone have to be accepting of things they don't actually want to accept?The old saying is that in polite company one doesn't discuss politics, religion or sex. Simple reason being is they are so given to raising the ire. As we have seen on this thread, the moment you raise a point not aligned with the "conventional wisdom" of the talking heads, you're instantly branded a heretic and a bigot. The same with discussing Muslims, you're instantly branded a racist, despite Muslim not being a race, but a religion.

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Sep 2016, 18:14
The same with discussing Muslims, you're instantly branded a racist, despite Muslim not being a race, but a religion.

Try getting a 'talking head' to offer an opinion on the Islamic approach to homosexuality or even the Islamic approach to female equality and suddenly you find a lot of very tongue tied people ducking for cover :p:p:p

Krystal n chips
28th Sep 2016, 04:29
Off topic...

Hempy, my thanks for that advice....:ok:....I am aware of the wx in the area and hence my plans are for the Sept / Oct period which also, hopefully, will be relatively tourist free. There's a lot of planning / research involved in this proposed trip as you can imagine.....although one thing I don't plan on doing is getting dressed up like a tourist...the campervan is the perfect solution !

Brian...That's a very kind offer should I be passing so to speak....rest assured therefore, I would have a shower first before dropping in...;)

Back to the not so imminent arrival of enlightenment then....

CoodaShooda
28th Sep 2016, 05:02
The Top End only really has two seasons, the 'wet' and the 'dry'. The wet season equates roughly to the Southern Hemisphere summer i.e. approx November til April. Unless you are in a 4wd campervan my tip is to plan your trip for mid-year (Aug/Sep/Oct), because the available roads become limited in the monsoon season and there's a lot of interesting places you won't be able to access.

As loathe as I am to correct Hempy, the Top End endures six seasons:

June to August is relatively dry, with low humidity and cool temps akin to an English heatwave.

September brings increased temps (32-35) (hotter inland) along with scattered storms bringing the promise of cooler conditions

October-December - the scattered storms lied. It's the Build Up. 34-37 with 98% humidity and bugger all rain.

December-January - if we are lucky, back to scattered storms and some relief.

February - March - Monsoon rains (unless its an El Nino year like the one just gone, when we get nothing but Build Up)

April-May - It's a dog's breakfast, with a mix of all the options available during the other seasons, in no discernible order.

May through September is also Grey Nomad season, with the major roads (all three of them) and camping grounds clogged with caravans and camper vans.

Actually Krystal, your timing isn't too bad in the scheme of things. The mornings aren't too bad, the evenings can be balmy and driving an airconditioned van through the heat of the day shouldn't be too taxing.

Let me know when you get to Darwin. I'll be happy to show you around.

Krystal n chips
28th Sep 2016, 05:34
Cooda.....many thanks for the info...and the offer.....:ok:

I may well ask for further advice as the planning develops, but, as it stands as a "one off trip", bumbling along and seeing Oz first hand seems a pretty good way of passing the time. :D

CoodaShooda
28th Sep 2016, 05:57
bumbling along and seeing Oz first hand seems a pretty good way of passing the time.

There's a lot of Aussie retirees who'd agree with you. :p

Happy to help where I can. :ok:

Hempy
28th Sep 2016, 08:23
As loathe as I am to correct Hempy

Aww, don't be like that! I'm always happy to be corrected! I'm a southerner, the furthest north I've ever lived is Townsville. I just didn't want to see KnC thinking that summer is the best time to tour the great top end.

Good post :ok:

Brian Abraham
29th Sep 2016, 03:57
I would have a shower first before dropping inI wouldn't bother, because you'll need one after the short walk (5 metres) from the air conditioned van to the front door. A neighbour of Cooda's. :ok: