Quantum wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:


yes you would think so. However, it is difficult to realise just how illiteratea and uneducated some posters are. They dont know what a metaphor is nor what principles are. And if you get onto ethics or more complex literary devices like satire and irony, they are lost altogether.

The big problem is that if our discussion was reduced to the lowest common denominator we would be discussing Dick and Dora, Nip and Fluff.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:


I have yet to see you supply a "fact" here and i have been a member for a few months now. When will it happen?

Anyway back to the topic you homophobes certainly are rude!

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:


you proved nothing. We disagree. You seem to think that if i dont agree with you i must not understand what you are saying. Private schools shouldn't receive any funding. If they didnt then the stats would be different anyway. The whole policy would be different. Private schools havent always been funded.

You are denying logic in refusing to consider my opinion. It goes 2 ways. I have "absorbed" other ppls argument occasionally but you dont see that because you dont want to. I bet you dont "absorb" anyone elses argument ever..you just resort to insults.

FD is a liar and quotes ppl out of context and misrepresents them. That is cheating.

you self-proclaimed "righties" gang up on ppl and insult them instead of offering any kind of logic. you dont seem to want to discuss anything either. Just "argue" and you nitpick lil things and harp on them instead of addressing issues.

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:19pm:


No a liar because he quotes ppl out of context and misrepresents them (as i already said). Obviously you have some comprehension problems.

As for the schools you are entitled to your opinion but I am entitled to mine. As I said in the thread it doesnt matter what it costs - we should spend the money to make the education system better. We have the money. Theres supposedly a "mining boom".

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 7:11pm:


lol. Perhaps my problem is that he quotes me out of context and misrepresents me.

SOB

MOTR wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:20am:


The existence of gravity does not require belief in it either

Church of England attacks gay marriage plan

The Church of England has attacked the British government's plan to allow gay couples to marry, saying it risked creating the biggest rift between the state and the church for centuries.

Prime minister David Cameron's government wants to extend the full legal status of marriage to homosexual people, who since 2005 have been able to contract unions known as civil partnerships.

The plan has provoked anger from church leaders including the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and some within Mr Cameron's own Conservative party, who accuse the government of interfering in religious matters.

In its formal response to the proposals, the Church of England said the move would change the "intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman".

"Several major elements of the government's proposals have not been thought through properly and are not legally sound," the church said in its official response.

"The consultation overlooks the implication of what is proposed for the position of the established church.

"We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise."

Twice as many Britons marry in secular, civil ceremonies as in religious rites.

About a quarter of weddings in England take place in Church of England ceremonies.

Ministers have been adamant that a new law would be brought in before the next election in 2015.

They say that under their proposals, churches and other religious establishments would not be obliged to modify their marriage rules.

But the Church of England said it was doubtful that a refusal to let same sex couples marry in their churches would withstand a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights.

It said changing the way marriage was defined by the state would change the definition for everyone and impact the nature of marriages solemnised in churches or other places of worship.

The row comes at a difficult time for the Church of England, which is grappling with the deeply divisive issue of whether to allow women bishops, which has put traditionalists and liberals at odds.

It is also in the process of choosing a new Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, to replace the outgoing Rowan Williams next year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/church-of-england-attacks-gay-marriage-pla...



Will homophobes oppose Australia's head of state, if in the near future, he/she can marry a person of the same sex?

Quote:


Good. The last thing we need is a theocracy.

SOB