Gay colors?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not, it is NOT illegal to have an opinion.
If someone doesn't like flying with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, atheists whites, men, people with excessive bowel gas discharge, people with poor eating habits, people who pick their nose or flying an aircraft decorated like a Mardi Gras float, it's their right to have those opinions.
The thought police on here would dearly love to dictate exactly what everyone's opinions must be. Thankfully the politically correct here don't have that power, yet.
I have no problem whatsoever with people having opinions contrary to mine, because a healthy society such as Australia is filled with diverse people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and sexual preferences. For this reason it is impossible to expect everyone to have the same opinions. I know you Utopian lefties think we should all think the same as you and will call anyone who disagrees with you homophobic, racist, biggot, or any other of a dozen derogatory adjectives to try and improve your position on your soap box but the real world doesn't work that way.
Taken to its extreme, people are sometimes so hell bent on changing the opinions of others to align with theirs they are willing to commit mass murder to achieve it. Happened in Nazi Germany in the 40's, it happened on Sept 11 2001, and it will happen again like countless other times in history.
Have your opinions by all means. But respect others for having theirs.
If someone doesn't like flying with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, atheists whites, men, people with excessive bowel gas discharge, people with poor eating habits, people who pick their nose or flying an aircraft decorated like a Mardi Gras float, it's their right to have those opinions.
The thought police on here would dearly love to dictate exactly what everyone's opinions must be. Thankfully the politically correct here don't have that power, yet.
I have no problem whatsoever with people having opinions contrary to mine, because a healthy society such as Australia is filled with diverse people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and sexual preferences. For this reason it is impossible to expect everyone to have the same opinions. I know you Utopian lefties think we should all think the same as you and will call anyone who disagrees with you homophobic, racist, biggot, or any other of a dozen derogatory adjectives to try and improve your position on your soap box but the real world doesn't work that way.
Taken to its extreme, people are sometimes so hell bent on changing the opinions of others to align with theirs they are willing to commit mass murder to achieve it. Happened in Nazi Germany in the 40's, it happened on Sept 11 2001, and it will happen again like countless other times in history.
Have your opinions by all means. But respect others for having theirs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is true that a majority of straight people in Australia regard the alleged sexual practices of many homosexual men to be abhorent then is it not feasible to suggest that any such putative widely held views will not be subject to fundamental change except perhaps within future generations? Within our society in this country, that is. It is surely possible for a reasonable person to hold to such opinions without being labelled rabidly homophobic - across the board. But if, for instance, schools were to include in classes to do with the sex education, detailed descriptions of alternative practices, along with the diagrams common to manuals of sexual instruction, then there would inevitably be strong objections raised by parents and large sections of the community.
Now here's an observation for Mr Ida Down (curious name there cobbs - - it smacks of a slightly 'off' joke as if you'd like to be upending.) For our once proud national carrier to be exploiting the mardi gras for commercial purposes would displease founders Hudson Fysh, Paul McGuinness, Fergus McMaster et al . On a cold and still night near certain graveyards, their mutterings may in imagination be faintly heard. (Thinks - recalling the stern portrait face of another founding director of the company, Ainslie Templeton, there was a visage implacably opposed to deviance of any kind , anywhere.)
IDA DOWN -
sorry ida too late for that. You have unwittingly opened a can of writhing worms which has resulted as ever in
a flurry of idiotic posts and some brilliant ones. If awards were handed out for this, pscho joe would be to the fore front. - for his well-honed satirical humour (up there with John Clarke) and his ability not to take himself too G DAMN seriously.
-----------------
perhaps this thread is still going because the mods see the benefit of an open debate on SSM as a healthy and useful thing, there being a few sound thinkers who hop onto proone when they sign off, all weary and spent. (They will find no stimulation or relaxation turning to the often vacuities of the Q and A program on the idiot box.) Maybe , too, they have read Robert Thouless's brilliant little book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". It long pre-dates the SSM debate, by the way. Interesting that some posters see no merit at all in even having the discussion. Are their minds that closed that they have no valid opinion on the subject?
Now here's an observation for Mr Ida Down (curious name there cobbs - - it smacks of a slightly 'off' joke as if you'd like to be upending.) For our once proud national carrier to be exploiting the mardi gras for commercial purposes would displease founders Hudson Fysh, Paul McGuinness, Fergus McMaster et al . On a cold and still night near certain graveyards, their mutterings may in imagination be faintly heard. (Thinks - recalling the stern portrait face of another founding director of the company, Ainslie Templeton, there was a visage implacably opposed to deviance of any kind , anywhere.)
IDA DOWN -
sorry ida too late for that. You have unwittingly opened a can of writhing worms which has resulted as ever in
a flurry of idiotic posts and some brilliant ones. If awards were handed out for this, pscho joe would be to the fore front. - for his well-honed satirical humour (up there with John Clarke) and his ability not to take himself too G DAMN seriously.
-----------------
perhaps this thread is still going because the mods see the benefit of an open debate on SSM as a healthy and useful thing, there being a few sound thinkers who hop onto proone when they sign off, all weary and spent. (They will find no stimulation or relaxation turning to the often vacuities of the Q and A program on the idiot box.) Maybe , too, they have read Robert Thouless's brilliant little book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". It long pre-dates the SSM debate, by the way. Interesting that some posters see no merit at all in even having the discussion. Are their minds that closed that they have no valid opinion on the subject?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the callsign of a Lancaster Bomber, actually.
"that" painted aircraft got me home last week, as SLF, from Japan after a 24 hour delay due to another 330 going tech. I must admit, if anything, the colour scheme made me chuckle. To be honest, they could have painted it anything, I did not care, as long as it got me home safely, which it did!
The Government has only themselves to blame - they could simply change the legislation just like Howard did. Problem solved. Move on nothing to see.
Ken, why do heterosexual couples get married when they can have the exact-same common law rights by simply living together? Sure, for some people it's religious but for 75% of us it's not (based on the 25-75% split between religious and civil marriages in recent years). Why are the 75% doing it?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
I'm not really interested in why they want to do it.
I'm more interested in why you don't want them to do it.
Why do you feel the need to stop them? How does it affect you?
I'm not really interested in why they want to do it.
I'm more interested in why you don't want them to do it.
Why do you feel the need to stop them? How does it affect you?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How exactly does it effect society? and also, SS couples dont have the same rights, as sadly, if one partner dies, his spouse doesnt get anything, unlike "normal" married couples.
Nunc est bibendum
Nope. That's incorrect. Same sex couples have been protected under the same de facto legislation as heterosexual couples for a number of years. Just another of the myths that exist.
If marriage and defacto laws are effectively the same, why not de-legislate marriage and just use the existing de-facto legislation to cover relationships for everyone?
No need for vote or plebiscite and it would solve the whole problem.
People could get ceremonially "married" if they wanted but it would just be a ceremonial thing that some people might like to do but it would not have (or need) any legal underpinning. You would not get any immediate rights from doing the ceremony.
Society would not need any government or legal involvement in "marriages" only in proven relationships, which surely is more significant and important in the long run than having performed a ceremony?
No need for vote or plebiscite and it would solve the whole problem.
People could get ceremonially "married" if they wanted but it would just be a ceremonial thing that some people might like to do but it would not have (or need) any legal underpinning. You would not get any immediate rights from doing the ceremony.
Society would not need any government or legal involvement in "marriages" only in proven relationships, which surely is more significant and important in the long run than having performed a ceremony?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also means the courts cannot fleece you,as they do in hetrosexual marriages if you get divorced. You people at least get to keep some of the furniture, just why you want to change that, has me beaten.There is no reason to think Gay divorced will be any better off,once the courts have finished with you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"that" painted aircraft got me home last week, as SLF, from Japan after a 24 hour delay due to another 330 going tech. I must admit, if anything, the colour scheme made me chuckle. To be honest, they could have painted it anything, I did not care, as long as it got me home safely, which it did!
There ARE differences between a married couple and de facto couple in regard to property settlement and maintenance. They may be minor, but can be significant if you happen to be the one effected.
De facto's have to essentially "prove" their relationship, to be subject to the Family Law Act. They also have to "prove" the relationship has ended before seeking maintenance. A married person can seek an order for maintenance without the marriage having ended.
Keg, I too would dearly love to know how it will affect society. Same-sex couples already exist, they already have children, they already adopt children, they won't be getting married in your church if your church doesn't want it, our opposite-sex partners will still be there in the morning, men and women won't suddenly develop a hankering for a same-sex marriage rather than an opposite-sex one.
The nexus between marriage and religion is well and truly broken - that horse has well and truly bolted given the fact that 75% of us get married with civil rather than religious celebrants. That was in 2015 and the trend was not towards using religious celebrants.
As much as you might want to cling to traditional values, society has moved on.
The nexus between marriage and religion is well and truly broken - that horse has well and truly bolted given the fact that 75% of us get married with civil rather than religious celebrants. That was in 2015 and the trend was not towards using religious celebrants.
As much as you might want to cling to traditional values, society has moved on.