Australian Politics Forum - Why R Homos and Greens so rude?

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #345 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:30pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:54pm:

Heh i see the example has changed from 30 years to 50 years. I have no idea what it was like 50 years ago but im guessing neither does anyone else here.

SOB

ever heard of BOOKS? literature and newspapers and other information? History books for instance? Not everybody is like you an unable to know or understand something your arent personally a part of.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #346 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:32pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

No problem, MOTR.

I'll drop in from time to time. But I won't be as regular as before. There is far too much abuse and too many personal insults around here for my taste. It's a pity, this forum could be so good and is being dragged down by a small group of extremely active people who ensure thread after thread totally loses track and just becomes an unpleasant slanging match.

BTW Valley Boy says to tell longy he quit voluntarily and wasnt banned or anything.

SOB

yeah, coz you'd know.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #347 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:33pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.

Generally they are accepted.

It's only a small minority of people who don't accept gay relationships.

You need to get out more.

thats an assumption. 'acceptance' is not the same as tolerance. I think you would find that 'acceptance' probably doesnt even make a majority even though most tolerate it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #348 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.

Generally they are accepted.

It's only a small minority of people who don't accept gay relationships.

You need to get out more.

thats an assumption. 'acceptance' is not the same as tolerance. I think you would find that 'acceptance' probably doesnt even make a majority even though most tolerate it.

Who cares. Acceptance is enough.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #349 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude? Reply #350 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:11pm If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #351 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude? Reply #352 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:11pm: If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that. You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #353 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:18pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Why cant you understand that paedophiles actually HARM others and gays harm nobody?

Quote:

thank God for that.

lol

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #354 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Once again you compare two completely different things.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #355 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:40pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Why cant you understand that paedophiles actually HARM others and gays harm nobody?

Quote:

thank God for that.

lol

SOB

Because

A) that is not the argument and
B) that is not necessarily true in either instance (which no doubt confuses you)

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #356 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:41pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Once again you compare two completely different things.

ACtually, I dont. But the subtleties of the comparison apparently confuses you.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Peter Freedman

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #357 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:46pm

longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.

Back to top

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #358 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 4:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.

You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?

I'm not entirely sure what you are on about. Incest and pedophilia are illegal in Australia. The argument for same sex marriages is that homosexual relationships are legal and in a secular society, separate from the laws of the church, homosexual citizens should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual citizens.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #359 - Jun 17^th, 2012 at 4:09pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.

I tried to point out to Longy, that this same argument could have been used to forbid interracial marriages at a time when they too were illegal.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged