I agree with most of this article,  but I find it hilarious that progressive views can apply this level of critical thinking to SSM yet can't apply it to Islam which is the motherlode of illiberal and antiprogressive bad ideas.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, not all views deserve respect

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/same-sex-marriage-not-all-views-deserve-respect/8816096

why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::)

have they checked out every NO vote?

We must always be amenable to reason.
Evidence and common-sense must rule.
I think it is right that ideas are tested.
But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable.

What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here!

Not all views deserve respect

That's ok gordy, I never respected your views anyway  :D :D :D :D :D

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:07am:

We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here!

its the only reason some come here for sadly....


I wont exactly go along with gordy..

as we do need to respect each others opinion....even with the smallest amount...

but it goes both ways.....and some of these YES people are very aggressive ....

cods wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:19am:

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! its the only reason some come here for sadly.... I wont exactly go along with gordy.. as we do need to respect each others opinion....even with the smallest amount... but it goes both ways.....and some of these YES people are very aggressive ....

That's because the LGBT community is a very intolerant one.

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:24am:

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:19am: thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! its the only reason some come here for sadly.... I wont exactly go along with gordy.. as we do need to respect each others opinion....even with the smallest amount... but it goes both ways.....and some of these YES people are very aggressive .... That's because the LGBT community is a very intolerant one.

I have seen a group of straight guys beating up on a poof just because he was gay.

I have never seen a group of poofs beating up on a straight guy just because he was straight.

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:30am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:24am: cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:19am: thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! its the only reason some come here for sadly.... I wont exactly go along with gordy.. as we do need to respect each others opinion....even with the smallest amount... but it goes both ways.....and some of these YES people are very aggressive .... That's because the LGBT community is a very intolerant one. I have seen a group of straight guys beating up on a poof just because he was gay. I have never seen a group of poofs beating up on a straight guy just because he was straight.

Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....??

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:30am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:24am: cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:19am: thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! its the only reason some come here for sadly.... I wont exactly go along with gordy.. as we do need to respect each others opinion....even with the smallest amount... but it goes both ways.....and some of these YES people are very aggressive .... That's because the LGBT community is a very intolerant one. I have seen a group of straight guys beating up on a poof just because he was gay. I have never seen a group of poofs beating up on a straight guy just because he was straight.

I do hope you stepped in and saved the poofs as you call them?...


the gay voice is very shrill though    you must agree..

No, I believe they found out he was a poof, and it was manly-christian-australian (or whatever their justification) to beat him up.

TO AJAX: But interesting response  there of yours.

cods wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:06am:

why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::) have they checked out every NO vote?

Politically the divide does seem to sit around that point ???

cods wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:06am:

why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::) have they checked out every NO vote?

They don't: they know all the media is garbage  ;D

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:07am:

We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here!

Are you prejudiced against religion?

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

No, I believe they found out he was a poof, and it was manly-christian-australian (or whatever their justification) to beat him up. TO AJAX: But interesting response  there of yours.

Gays aint shy to do anything that crosses their minds.

I said that because I know that its happened before.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:06am: why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::) have they checked out every NO vote? Politically the divide does seem to sit around that point ???

I disagree!

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:32am:

Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....??

do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them?

From the article:

It may be painful to acknowledge, but what we view as a core belief to us may be seen differently by others. Even if we feel that the belief is a strong part of our identity.

Like all ideas in a free society, it must be permissible to subject that core belief to open inquiry.

To assume that an idea may not be questioned because it is a part of your identity, and that an attack on it is an attack on you equivalent to a denial of human respect, is a fallacy. I call this the fallacy of deepest offence.

It is a blurring of the line between people and ideas. It is a device by which ideas are rendered immune to critical inquiry behind the claim of deepest possible offence: an insult to human dignity.

John Smith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 10:08am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them?

Don't know depends on many factors.

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 10:57am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors.

Well the main factor would if you found it acceptable to be sucked off by a dude or not, wouldn't you say?

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 10:57am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors.

Now you're not even being honest with yourself

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:04am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Well the main factor would if you found it acceptable to be sucked off by a dude or not, wouldn't you say?

Precisely and that's why he copped a beating

John Smith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:10am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Now you're not even being honest with yourself

You mean if they were 16 year olds and drunk or if they were 65 year olds and sober wouldn't make a difference..?

Like I said depends on many factors.

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:24am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 11:10am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Now you're not even being honest with yourself You mean if they were 16 year olds and drunk or if they were 65 year olds and sober wouldn't make a difference..? Like I said depends on many factors.

I think in either case they'd accept the girls offer or decline., I doubt very much any guy would beat up a girl for offering to give them a head job

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 11:04am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Well the main factor would if you found it acceptable to be sucked off by a dude or not, wouldn't you say? Precisely and that's why he copped a beating

If you're talking about the poof I saw beat up, he did nothing, he said nothing, to provoke it. But let's not let truth get in the way.

Anyway, if he winks at you, does that deserve a beating??
If he looks at you in a 'funny' way, does that deserve a beating??

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 11:23am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 11:04am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Well the main factor would if you found it acceptable to be sucked off by a dude or not, wouldn't you say? Precisely and that's why he copped a beating If you're talking about the poof I saw beat up, he did nothing, he said nothing, to provoke it. But let's not let truth get in the way. Anyway, if he winks at you, does that deserve a beating?? If he looks at you in a 'funny' way, does that deserve a beating??

No, but tons of hetero men and women get beaten up for doing nothing!

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 10:36am:

From the article: It may be painful to acknowledge, but what we view as a core belief to us may be seen differently by others. Even if we feel that the belief is a strong part of our identity. Like all ideas in a free society, it must be permissible to subject that core belief to open inquiry. To assume that an idea may not be questioned because it is a part of your identity, and that an attack on it is an attack on you equivalent to a denial of human respect, is a fallacy. I call this the fallacy of deepest offence. It is a blurring of the line between people and ideas. It is a device by which ideas are rendered immune to critical inquiry behind the claim of deepest possible offence: an insult to human dignity.

  :) :) Is the idea of revolution up for open inquiry?

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:46am:

freediver wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:36am: From the article: It may be painful to acknowledge, but what we view as a core belief to us may be seen differently by others. Even if we feel that the belief is a strong part of our identity. Like all ideas in a free society, it must be permissible to subject that core belief to open inquiry. To assume that an idea may not be questioned because it is a part of your identity, and that an attack on it is an attack on you equivalent to a denial of human respect, is a fallacy. I call this the fallacy of deepest offence. It is a blurring of the line between people and ideas. It is a device by which ideas are rendered immune to critical inquiry behind the claim of deepest possible offence: an insult to human dignity.   :) :) Is the idea of revolution up for open inquiry?

  ;) ;) ;) What about the idea of societal suicide: is that also up for open inquiry?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:06am: why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::) have they checked out every NO vote? Politically the divide does seem to sit around that point ???

Well thats bulls, even Labor MPs disagree where have you been?
Even gays disagree... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Ajax wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 11:04am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:57am: John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 10:08am: Ajax wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:32am: Maybe he approached them and offered to blow them....?? do you think they would have beat up a girl who approached them and offered to blow them? Don't know depends on many factors. Well the main factor would if you found it acceptable to be sucked off by a dude or not, wouldn't you say? Precisely and that's why he copped a beating

Prolly a bit harsh, but if he touched a person while saying that, that then becomes self defence of an assault.

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:07am:

We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here!

You most certainly argue with religious ideas because after all, they're all just ideas.

There are leftists who are so loath to criticise anything to do with Islam, they give Wahhabism and even the worst aspects of the Taliban moral equivalence because it's a religion.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 9:35am:

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:06am: why do GAYS think its only Liberals  that disagree on this.. ::) ::) have they checked out every NO vote? Politically the divide does seem to sit around that point ???

I'd say that's only so at the very far left and far right end of the spectrum and much less obvious as you move towards the centre.

A slanted article, Gordon, wearing the sheep's clothing of ultimate reason, but continuously espousing one side of the question.

It discusses the anti-ssm position in isolation without according to the pro arguments the same values,  and accepts 'marriage equality' as a given, when there are countless argument points about the current equality rights in marriage that everyone has.  I've posted before on that, several times.

You see the same things with Islam, feminism and all the other -isms we endure these days... not only is one 'side' - usually the side creating division and dissent - exempt from criticism, but critical and even derogatory terms are applied to the 'other' side even before it gets its boots on, and that 'other side' is not accorded the same value or rights to open discussion as the 'correct' side.

It's like discussing 'white supremacy' in Charlottesville, with blatant refusal to accept in the media that the problems were and remain two-way - and that the 'white rights' people did not start the blue...... yet becuase they are labeled NAZIs' and 'white supremacists - they are automatically cast as wrong, and their views are given no value or hearing.

That, my son, is the true import of such articles as the one you posted.  It's called propaganda, and it can be very subtle.

This may not be appropriate at this time,... but let's face it it's a bit uncouth fullstop: Steve Bannon who just got fired from the Trump team was infamous for once saying : "Would you rather your daughter had cancer or feminism?"

....obviously that's a shocking thing to say but I think it speaks volumes about the -isms in society.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Gordon wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! You most certainly argue with religious ideas because after all, they're all just ideas. There are leftists who are so loath to criticise anything to do with Islam, they give Wahhabism and even the worst aspects of the Taliban moral equivalence because it's a religion.

Actions speak louder than words: the idiots want to set up a caliphate then that's enough for me to be careful of who I make friends with in the workplace and I know many a lefty are the same.

Infact, I don't know any with proper relations with muslims. I'll talk to 'em alright but that's about it.

Gordon wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! You most certainly argue with religious ideas because after all, they're all just ideas. There are leftists who are so loath to criticise anything to do with Islam, they give Wahhabism and even the worst aspects of the Taliban moral equivalence because it's a religion.

Revolutionaries, for example, die for an idea.
Religious, christian or muslim, die for their faith. Martyrs.

No logic or reason or evidence ever thought or said or produced will change someone's "faith". They die for their faith, not an "idea": well if you can believe what dying religious people say, and I don't see not to.

I mentioned faith and prejudice as the two prime examples as to where no argument or reason can impact.

Faith and prejudice. The muslim terrorist who kills, and the white supremacist who kills, for example,  are different sides of the same coin.

No-one is born with these beliefs.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 19^th, 2017 at 1:31pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 12:34pm: thecuriousmail wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 9:07am: We must always be amenable to reason. Evidence and common-sense must rule. I think it is right that ideas are tested. But you can't argue with a religious view, because it's faith, and you can't argue with prejudice, because it's unmovable. What is disappointing is when someone makes a point and the response is just a personal attack. Lot of that here! You most certainly argue with religious ideas because after all, they're all just ideas. There are leftists who are so loath to criticise anything to do with Islam, they give Wahhabism and even the worst aspects of the Taliban moral equivalence because it's a religion. Actions speak louder than words: the idiots want to set up a caliphate then that's enough for me to be careful of who I make friends with in the workplace and I know many a lefty are the same. Infact, I don't know any with proper relations with muslims. I'll talk to 'em alright but that's about it.

check with greg next time hes around... he has lots of mates who are muslim.. one even drinks with him in his local... ::) ::)