Comment

Comment by Rory Donnellan on December 13, 2011 at 10:48am

While we continue to oppose all forms of unjust discrimination, we must remember that some forms of discrimination are both prudent and necessary - as in discriminating right from wrong. Deciding who is a safe and suitable babysitter for one's children, as Rob Messenger has done, is another form of prudent and just discrimination.

Comment by Ruth Bonnett on December 13, 2011 at 8:08am

Thank you Heather and Ebony, and everyone who has contributed, and especially to the Independent member for Burnett for opening this up to public debate.  Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. It has been said that some people were ignorant.  Who, exactly is ignorant and why was that said? What statement have they made which are demonstrably false?  The definition of ignorance is: "lacking in knowledge or training - an unlearned man".  So if someone has posted something incorrect because of lack of knowledge, please let us know exactly what was said that is false, and why the statement is demonstrably false.  Cate asked quite some time ago for alternate research, evidence, statistics etc because what she read was quite disturbing. 

Secondly, I posed a question: knowing what we know about the risks of the homosexual lifestyle and the propensity of young teenagers to take absolutely no notice of adults (yes, I was young once too) then how do we protect the minority homosexual young person without risking the physical and mental health, and life span of many other young people?  What exactly are we trying to protect these young homosexuals from?  Do they experience teasing at school?  Are you simply trying to protect their feelings? 

And thirdly if I may wander off topic a bit, it seems that some western countries have gone from fighting for equal rights for individuals to fighting for special rights for groups.  Civil and political rights are necessary for any democratic country.  Human rights were originally meant to restrain the king or the government.  Now, we hand government the tools with which to dole out special rights to special groups (just have a read of the Anti Discrimination Act 1991), which is the exact opposite of restraining the unlimited power of the state upon hapless individuals not lucky enough to be a member of one self identifed grievance group or another.

Something to think about.

Rob, sorry if I have hijacked this discussion, so please remove this post if you think it will take the thread off track, and thank you very much for being courageous enough to state your case.

Comment by Heather Wallace on December 12, 2011 at 6:18pm

As I said in an earlier post, the tactic is to label people that don't agree with you as "ignorant" and not educated. In other words until they swallow the propaganda they are not equipped to have an opinion.

From what I have seen on JG, I think it is way out of line to label the contributors  as being discriminatory, ill informed and ignorant. I believe members write from personal experience as individuals as family members as workers as part of social groups as online community members, surely this is what we evaluate our thoughts and decisions on...

 

Comment by Rory Donnellan on December 12, 2011 at 5:21pm

These debates are by no means confined to Australia, but are part of a worldwide agenda.

Senator Rick Santorum has recently commented on the situation in the USA...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rick-santorum-homosexual-marriage-...

Pro-family groups in the US are also lamenting the inability to engage in legitimate debate without being branded "bigots"...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activists-increasingly-...

Comment by Dennis "DARBY" Brierley on December 12, 2011 at 3:00pm

and Ebony, in case you are not sure if i really do know gay people, i actually subcontract to a gay man and we get on fine.

Comment by Dennis "DARBY" Brierley on December 12, 2011 at 2:57pm

Ebony, Ebony, Ebony. you have just shown who the real bigots are.

i have nothing against homosexuals, if thats the  way they want to spend their time then so be it.

but keep it at home and away from kids.

i would hate to see gay marriage legalised because then adoption would be nade avalable to them or it's called discrimination.

i believe its all about protecting the kids and if you can't or won't see thhat then you need to take a good hard look at your self and you own morals.

Comment by Ruth Bonnett on December 12, 2011 at 1:45pm

Hi Ebony,

Ignorance is only fixed by informed, respectful and honest debate.  I am not homo phobic.  I am not a homo phile.  I am homo sapiens, with the ability to think, reason and act.   In my view it is irresponsible for parents to allow their teenagers to think that it is normal and healthy to have between hundreds and thousands of sexual partners - as posted research shows is evident in the homosexual population to multiple times that of the heterosexual lifestyle.  It is irresponsible to promote a lifestyle that could shorten the life span, and risk their health.  Of course, many teenagers go through a stage of searching for their own identity, including sexual orientation.  In my view it is grossly irresponsible to push them to the homosexual lifestyle.  It is common knowledge that teenagers take precious little notice of parents and/or teachers who warn of risks.  To promote or openly support any homosexual lifestyle by normalising it as marriage is just wrong because it mimimises or negates the message that there ARE risks to the lifestyle. 

Now, please let us know exactly what you think is so ignorant or ill informed.  Online posters have been asked to counter information posted by others with more current research.

Be our guest. Enlighten us. Don't attack others.  If you think that I am wrong, tell me so and why you think I am wrong.

How can we best protect individual rights of fair minded ROTM homosexuals without risking the health of far more teenagers?

 

In closing, I would say that to discriminate means to judge for oneself.  Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong, but when the basis for discrimination is on relevant and important issues, then to reject this discrimination is to reject rational thinking.

Comment by Roger Rankin Crook on December 12, 2011 at 11:50am

There you have it Eb, it's all in Rob Messenger's 'last post'. Surely there cannot be a Reveille (on this discussion) after that?

R

Comment by Rob Messenger on December 12, 2011 at 11:10am

Ebony,

I go back to the original point I made in the post. There are unintended consequences which may harm children and weaken our culture and society, from recognising civil unions and gay marriages.

I like to divide the people I know and meet into two groups.

1) The group which believes that it is wrong to place small children in the care of transvestites.

2) The group which believes its is OK to place small children in the care of transvestites.

Asking people to answer this question is an important test which saves me time.

If people think that its OK to put small children in the care of transvestites then I know not to put much value to their opinions, not take them seriously and not to trust them.

And lastly and importantly, they won't be on my list for baby sitting duties.

Comment by Rob Moore on December 11, 2011 at 7:56pm

Last night I clicked on Rory's link-

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2011/features_jan11...

 

I am not a catholic- I'm not anything! I started reading and about half an hour later- I had confirmed  in writing what my insticts were telling me.

           Roger says to look up Wikipedia- meaningless drivel and it is big on quoting this paedophile Kinsey and his shonkie research. I am meant to discard my whole of life observations -school and animals and believe wiki!!! Not likely.

 

This is smoke and mirrors for the real agenda-I urge anyone looking in here to read this link and you too Rob M as we need you to make use of this content and shame those air heads in the QLD parliament to get some backbone.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page