Gay colors?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old testament is older, obviously, but more of a collection of legends. New testament was written well after the fact by people with political agendas. With some of the oldest Dead Sea scrolls not approved by the Catholic church (as they indicate Jesus would be really pissed off with them ) you cannot treat the Bible as fact.
Anyway, nothing to do with a few stckers on a jet.
Anyway, nothing to do with a few stckers on a jet.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arctic Circle
Age: 75
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anyway, nothing to do with a few stckers (sic) on a jet."
True, however an interesting discussion nonetheless, although perhaps better relegated to jet blast.
Obviously attracting a large degree of interest however.
True, however an interesting discussion nonetheless, although perhaps better relegated to jet blast.
Obviously attracting a large degree of interest however.
"Both parents, iving in the home, every day?" - so you'd ban FIFO workers, long haul pilots and many shiftworkers from having kids? Again, you're holding SSM to a higher standard than opposite-sex marriage. And don't pull the "best of a bad situation" line - many such people get married with those factors as a pre-existing condition.
You call leaving an abusive marriage a "whim" do you? That's sick.
No, I'm saying real marriage isn't an ideal and it's hypocritical to hold one group to it and not another. You either ban opposite-sex marriage between men and women who enter into marriage clearly being unable to meet the ideal or your ideal is sterile fantasy.
Please produce some real evidence that an opposite-sex marriage is superior for raising kids - measurable outcomes.
No, you're anti-SSM because you hold to a fantasy ideal.
You call leaving an abusive marriage a "whim" do you? That's sick.
No, I'm saying real marriage isn't an ideal and it's hypocritical to hold one group to it and not another. You either ban opposite-sex marriage between men and women who enter into marriage clearly being unable to meet the ideal or your ideal is sterile fantasy.
Please produce some real evidence that an opposite-sex marriage is superior for raising kids - measurable outcomes.
No, you're anti-SSM because you hold to a fantasy ideal.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, and others,
Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?
SSM does not change the rights and/or abilities of same-sex couples to have or adopt children.
Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.
Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?
SSM does not change the rights and/or abilities of same-sex couples to have or adopt children.
Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.
[QUOTE]
Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?[/QUOTE]
Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.
I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Not only for a debate on SSM, but for almost everything else we do from driving too fast as male adolescents to putting on lipstick before going out the door. Children are the reason for it all.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.
I envy Keg his faith and anyone else with similar. I have tried to produce it in myself at intervals throughout my life but have never quite succeeded. One thing that always causes me trouble is the proposition that "our religion is right and therefore everyone else is wrong". The science of things also stands as a rather large obstacle to me. I can see clearly how the animal world works regarding 'the selfish gene' and can't see any good reason why human kind doesn't slot nicely into that system alongside all the other animals. We appear no different when viewed from a distance. Throughout history it appears to me that judgement of others causes problems and any step that involves one party ( normally religious) looking down on another saying tut tutt causes more heartache.There have always been gay people, why not bring them into the tent rather than keep looking out at them tut tutting. Surely more care and nurture ( for our children) will evolve out of an inclusive approach than one of separatism.
Just my thoughts.
Total respect for anyone who can lead a life without hurting others regardless of faith, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Framer
Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?[/QUOTE]
Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.
I envy Keg his faith and anyone else with similar. I have tried to produce it in myself at intervals throughout my life but have never quite succeeded. One thing that always causes me trouble is the proposition that "our religion is right and therefore everyone else is wrong". The science of things also stands as a rather large obstacle to me. I can see clearly how the animal world works regarding 'the selfish gene' and can't see any good reason why human kind doesn't slot nicely into that system alongside all the other animals. We appear no different when viewed from a distance. Throughout history it appears to me that judgement of others causes problems and any step that involves one party ( normally religious) looking down on another saying tut tutt causes more heartache.There have always been gay people, why not bring them into the tent rather than keep looking out at them tut tutting. Surely more care and nurture ( for our children) will evolve out of an inclusive approach than one of separatism.
Just my thoughts.
Total respect for anyone who can lead a life without hurting others regardless of faith, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Framer
Why should it be closed? Because its not PC? I thought we still lived in a democracy.Its not about Gays, so why not have a Aircraft painted for Anzac Day? Australia Day? Labor Day? Palm Sunday? Easter? Christmas? Oddly enough, some find it offensive for three quarter naked people, strutting their stuff in a public place. Then painting an aircraft that carries The Australian Flag, to promote it. Those people also have a right, to express their opinion.
Arguments will not convince anyone to change their deeply held views on these issues. Certainly not ones on public web forums. It just descends into disparagement on both sides.
Views do change though. I changed my views. I was pretty conservative once about issues typically described under the LGBTIQ alphabet banner.
When I people I knew, liked and respected came out and I realised they were still the same people I liked and respected. That made me sit up.
And when a student I had once re-appeared after many years as the opposite sex I found it deeply uncomfortable until she explained it was either that or suicide. That took me back. It was not my journey but, we only get one life. Who was I to condemn someone to misery in it? This person was now happy (not as in laughing and joyous but as finally comfortable in their own skin).
I know same sex couples who are just as loving and decent parents as you will find anywhere and whose kids have grown up exactly the same as my kids and are just as well adjusted.
Basically when I saw that people whose sexuality and preferences in that area were not like mine and yet were otherwise just plain people I decided - who gives a toss?
Arguments did not change my views. People I got to know, their stories and their lives changed my views.
The way I see it now is if 2 people are lucky enough to find love and care and meaning with each other, and it is not in a way that I would be able to find it, who am I to say you cannot have that because I wouldn't.
There are some I know whose 'non conventional' relationship could teach many of my more conventional friends lessons in how relationships can work better.
If you don't want to fly an aeroplane because of the paint job, let me know. I will happily take over.
Views do change though. I changed my views. I was pretty conservative once about issues typically described under the LGBTIQ alphabet banner.
When I people I knew, liked and respected came out and I realised they were still the same people I liked and respected. That made me sit up.
And when a student I had once re-appeared after many years as the opposite sex I found it deeply uncomfortable until she explained it was either that or suicide. That took me back. It was not my journey but, we only get one life. Who was I to condemn someone to misery in it? This person was now happy (not as in laughing and joyous but as finally comfortable in their own skin).
I know same sex couples who are just as loving and decent parents as you will find anywhere and whose kids have grown up exactly the same as my kids and are just as well adjusted.
Basically when I saw that people whose sexuality and preferences in that area were not like mine and yet were otherwise just plain people I decided - who gives a toss?
Arguments did not change my views. People I got to know, their stories and their lives changed my views.
The way I see it now is if 2 people are lucky enough to find love and care and meaning with each other, and it is not in a way that I would be able to find it, who am I to say you cannot have that because I wouldn't.
There are some I know whose 'non conventional' relationship could teach many of my more conventional friends lessons in how relationships can work better.
If you don't want to fly an aeroplane because of the paint job, let me know. I will happily take over.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Not only for a debate on SSM, but for almost everything else we do from driving too fast as male adolescents to putting on lipstick before going out the door. Children are the reason for it all.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.
The fact that there are heterosexual people who choose not to have children also proves that not to be entirely true.
Some gay people, however, do have or raise children. The decision to legalise SSM will not have any affect on that. If you want gay people not to have or raise children, then that's a separate argument.
We have bigger problems in this country than this crap.
Not many give two f- about which acronyms are in fashion this week, in fact there is a distinct global shift in attitudes to the populist right. If we'd had a plebiscite this wouldn't even be in the news.
Also, Qantas sucks, regardless of what color they paint their machines. I haven't booked them since the "bomb-maker's son" took over, although occasionally get stuck with them by code-share. Glad to spend my money elsewhere.
Not many give two f- about which acronyms are in fashion this week, in fact there is a distinct global shift in attitudes to the populist right. If we'd had a plebiscite this wouldn't even be in the news.
Also, Qantas sucks, regardless of what color they paint their machines. I haven't booked them since the "bomb-maker's son" took over, although occasionally get stuck with them by code-share. Glad to spend my money elsewhere.
Nunc est bibendum
New testament was written well after the fact by people with political agendas.
By all means choose not to believe it but at least base that reasoning on sound research.
Nunc est bibendum
This is the next straw man.
Given the history and context of my comments do you think this is the point I was making? Only someone setting out to deliberately mislead would point to that as the conclusion of my previous comments. Quite obviously there are occasions when for the safety of the mother and child, or father and child, that separation is the best (crap) outcome. The 'whim' here would be the whim of the violent parent who cares little for their child.
Either way, my original point still holds about the system you're proposing.
In this discussion though you're the one that has reduced children's rights to nothing. You're the one has said they have no rights. You're the one who is advocating a system where deliberately and by design a child is deliberately excluded from the the constant love and care of it's biological parents- irrespective of whether those parents are FIFO parents or long haul crew.
Nunc est bibendum
I'm not so sure. When Shorten and Labor decided to shoot down the plebiscite and advocate for a parliamentary vote that to me was the first sign that the internal polling wasn't going in favour of SSM. I mean if it was such a sure thing, why not support the plebiscite and SSM would be in by now.
Unless of course he and Labor were just playing politics with the issue?
Unless of course he and Labor were just playing politics with the issue?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The EU
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this discussion though you're the one that has reduced children's rights to nothing. You're the one has said they have no rights. You're the one who is advocating a system where deliberately and by design a child is deliberately excluded from the the constant love and care of it's biological parents- irrespective of whether those parents are FIFO parents or long haul crew.
The Victorian, New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform Commissions all looked at the interest of the child when deciding laws on same sex adoption. They concluded there was no disadvantage.
in fact there is a distinct global shift in attitudes to the populist right. If we'd had a plebiscite this wouldn't even be in the news.
Australia is now one of the last Western democracies to not have Same Sex marriage. Even places like Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Mexico, hardly bastions of human rights have it. We were one of the first countries to have women's suffrage, and we are going to look like turkeys soon if we don't allow marriage for same sex partners.
I'd expect the Liberals at the next federal conference to call for a change to a free vote to take to the next election, a majority of them probably support it anyway and one of the biggest opponents (Bernardi) is gone. So I'd expect it to be legalised around 2019.
Constitutional Bill of Rights
Unless of course he and Labor were just playing politics with the issue?
RAINBOW PJs
I see that there are now PJs with the kangaroo in rainbow colours. Where will this end? Do passengers have a choice? 
https://twitter.com/Louise_Pratt/sta...27132505518080
https://twitter.com/Louise_Pratt/sta...27132505518080
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: aus
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The One Star cousins cop it in the neck even worse with the "Orange washing" amateurville cult like mentality.
As usual, the agenda changes with a new head that's not so inclined as the current. Fuel price will go up and this fluffy crap will go quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.
As usual, the agenda changes with a new head that's not so inclined as the current. Fuel price will go up and this fluffy crap will go quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.
