The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > CLAUSE 61 and the GAY RIGHTS DEBATE.

CLAUSE 61 and the GAY RIGHTS DEBATE.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
We have one debate going on about Akermanis statement.

In view of the vicious and unfounded attacks on him subsequently, it might be of value to examine just how insidious is the attack on our freedom to even debate such things.

THE UK
This will take a bit of work on your part folks..but it's worth it.

SEQUENCE.

1/ There is a general trend world wide, under pressure from the U.N. and gay lobby (Maurice Strong is in this as well) to repress any hint of non acceptance of homosexual behavior as 'normal'.

-PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 SECTION III

Criminalized'inciting racial hatred'.

-RACIAL and RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006

added "religious orientation" to section 3 of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT

-CRIMINAL JUSTICE and IMIGRATION ACT 2008

added "and sexual orientation" to the hate speech provisions of the POA

AMMENDMENT. Lord Waddington (Lords) added an ammendment to the effect of protecting free and robust speech on the issue of sexual orientation as follows:

After section 29J insert—

“29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

-CORONERS and JUSTICE BILL 2009 tries to add "CLAUSE 61"

61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation

In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), OMIT SECTION 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).

*BINGO*.. and there you have it. Communist Jack Straw's attempt to stifle free speech of the type WE HAVE BEEN HAVING in the other thread.

DISCUSS.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 24 May 2010 7:57:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH,

The more secular a society becomes the more comfortable they become with all sin. This includes sex outside of marriage, killing the unborn, pornography, idolatry, lying, cheating and homosexuality. Anyone whose conscience is not seared knows these things are all wrong. Thankfully God sent His Son to die for all mankind despite their mocking and self righteousness.

What you are trying to do is convince people filled with secular dogma that what they say is wrong and what you say is right. I agree that when it comes to some areas no matter how lovingly you say it that some secularist try and stop free speech. This is generally because they are insecure and hate their dogmas being challenged. They want to enjoy their sin and pretend that one day they wont be held to account.
Posted by runner, Monday, 24 May 2010 2:43:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGIR
"...homosexual behaviour as normal..."

It is normal for the person who is homosexual Al even if it is not normal (as in 'most common', 'the usual', 'the majority) among the wide spectrum of human beings.

Normal refers to what is the norm. It does not necessarily imply anything wrong or negative. I read somewhere recently that the most widely drunk beverage in the world is beer, followed by tea. It is normal for people to prefer beer, however there is nothing amiss if people prefer a different beverage.

There is no infringement on free speech in any of those clauses only laws against discrimination and hate speech that might stir up violence towards any one group based on race or sexuality.

There is no point in saying that homosexuals are not normal - the fact is homosexuals exist indicating a wider spectrum of human characteristics than you imagine. There is a wide spectrum of what can be termed 'natural' and even on the feminine/masculine scale there are many who hover in the middle area whether it be based on hormonal variations or other genetic factors who can say. And does it matter
Posted by pelican, Monday, 24 May 2010 3:42:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pely

you said:

"There is no infringement on free speech in any of those clauses"

Mind answering a simple question ? :)

When Lord Waddington called for the ammendment which GUARANTEED free speech in the form of 'robust conversations' and even criticism..which equally apply to Hetero sexual orientations....

Then LABOUR wanted to REMOVE that simple bit of freedom......

WHY....would labor want remove something which only guaratneed 'conversation and criticsm' .. as our law says.. "in good faith and reasonable" or. "in the public interest" which their law does not have.

Why? why would labour want to remove an ammendment which guarantees the right to criticise ?

Since when is 'criticism' incitement to hate ? (Really..I want to know)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 24 May 2010 5:24:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Al

Criticism is not an invitation to hate unless it is done with the intent and purpose to incite violence against those with different sexual orientation. In the case you talk about the law was not changed - your free speech is still protected.

However, where do you draw the line in relation to violence. If the hate speech contributed to a death can it be used in a Court of Law as aiding and abetting or as inciting violence.

I know there are fine lines on this issue. But free speech does not mean we hold no responsibility towards the safety and rights of others.

The good thing about free speech, is those who engage in hate speech (not criticism) tend to dig themselves into a big hole by their own prejudices and at least their motives are transparent for all to judge.

You have not answered my question about your issues with homosexuality?
Posted by pelican, Monday, 24 May 2010 5:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner>>The more secular a society becomes the more comfortable they become with all sin. This includes sex outside of marriage, killing the unborn, pornography, idolatry, lying, cheating and homosexuality.<<

runner, I am surmising that you are a fire and brimstone kind of person.
I agree with your thoughts...mostly.
Religious adherence stabilizes society by inhibiting actions contrary to the religious teachings, we do the morally wrong things less, we don't stop completely, but the recidivist percentage goes down.

The point of difference I take is the addition of the fagotty guys and lesbian gals to your list. I can only gather that you have never really known a person who is homosexual. In exactly the same way that you as a heterosexual are psychologically drawn to and aroused by the shape and the demeanor of the opposite sex, so is the homosexual drawn to their own gender. It is not a lifestyle choice, its god giving another poor sod an extra cross to bear. God gave us, above all other creatures a free will, and from the fruits of our application of that will we are to be judged.

Homosexuals do not have a "free will" choice in regard to their sexual orientation, as most priests do when they take advantage of their position of power to seduce boys. Boy molesting priests should be in your sights not consenting homosexuals.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 24 May 2010 10:14:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saying gays chose their lifestyle is the same as saying you chose yours. I'm hetero, no amount of guilt, persecution, judgement, violence, ignorance, or hate, will change that. Why's it any different for gays?.
Posted by StG, Monday, 24 May 2010 10:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pely

my issues with homosexuality ?

I only have one major issue.. DON'T TEACH IT as 'normal' to children.
Unless you also teach that people like Dennis Ferguson are also 'normal' to his group, and that my favorite target NAMBLA are also 'normal'.

I cannot change someone who is committed to a particular self perception about their sexuality... to be honest I hardly even worry about doing that.

This issue goes much much deeper than just the gay issue. It is a political one. (which is where my 'issue' is)

Promoting is different from accepting.

Read paragraph 1 of Marcuse essay "Repressive Tolerance" and see if you can tweak to what I'm on about. It was written in 1965.

Think about what was lawful and unlawful then? (homosexual behavior)

REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE 1965
THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression

MARX>>>FRANKFURT SCHOOL (critical social theorists)>>HERBERT MARCUSE (moved from Frankfurt to the USA)>>>COUNTER CULTURE 60s/70s>>>American Academia>>>GAY RIGHTS,FEMINISM,POLITICAL CORRECTNESS,MULTICULTURALISM,ENVIRONMENTALISM,ANIMAL RIGHTS,GLOBAL GOVERNANCE>> and the final destination .. you, me and our children.

PC is about 'REPRESSION'.. of dissenting views. I don't like being 'repressed'.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 5:21:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that extract on repressive tolerance. It goes nicely with my own expression of the phenomenon of minority dominance on the Akermanis thread.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 6:15:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse]
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 7:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted and poster suspended for a week. I'm happy to debate moderation decisions offline, but not online. If they were discussed online it could easily get to a position where I wouldn't do anything else but argue all day.]
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 9:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gays are very capable of producing fertile sperm, and the purpose of fertile sperm is to reproduce a human being, and if homosexuals think anal sex is normal they are deluded. Their self interest is greater than the survival of a healthy society. This act is abnormal and unnatural, and poses dire health risks to a community i.e. Aids in the Sydney gay community and what has happened in Africa.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 11:24:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo: << Gays are very capable of producing fertile sperm >>

Only if they're male.

<< the purpose of fertile sperm is to reproduce a human being >>

No ejaculation allowed unless reproduction is intended!

<< if homosexuals think anal sex is normal they are deluded >>

Another homophobe who imagines that all homosexuals (and only homosexuals) engage in anal sex. What about oral sex? What about heterosexual anal sex?

You homophobes clearly have very limited sexual experience and/or knowledge.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 11:42:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJM
Your ignorance is demonstrated by your anger.
What is the clinical purpose of sperm?

What is the clinical purpose of an Ovum?

For you sex with an animal is natural.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 11:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo: << For you sex with an animal is natural. >>

Fascinating to see you trot out the old fallacious homophobic equation between homosexuality and bestiality.

I'm not angry, Philo. Indeed, I rather thought it was you homophobes who seem to be angry that gay people have rights.

I just obviously have more knowledge and exeperience of human sexuality than you do. Have you ever had oral sex, for example?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 12:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must have missed the bit where CJ said sex with animals is okay.

Gees these debates get silly after a while.

Al
I will fight for your rights to free speech but I wish you would use your considerable zeal and enthusiasm to defend the rights of individuals to live their lives without interference from others. It is about not doing harm. Consenting adults having sex does not constitute harm. Is there not an expectation of freedom of association that goes with free speech?

Maybe, deep down there is a part of you that can understand why defending the rights of homosexuals is not the same as defending abhorrent practices of pedophiles.

But still...I cannot debate you on the instrinsic rights to criticise as you see fit I can only hope that others who disagree with your view might one day shed a different light. An entrenched view does not always mean it is right (acknowleding that 'right' is subjective).
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 1:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Folks.. please spend some time studying the opening post with the reference to how legislation is used to socially engineer society.

That little 'CLAUSE 61' was slipped in to a totally different bill in the hope (my opinion) that it would not be noticed by the Lords and sneak through.

It is as pernicious as it gets.. the reason I showed this was not really to open up a 'mechanics of gay sex' debate (CJ and PHILo *frown*)

The only issue in my mind in opening this is freedom of expression and how the left's view of 'A TOLERANT' society is all about REPRESSION ala Marcuse's first paragragh...

Others try to 'repress' antiseptic's views and rid themselves of his 'intolerance' so they can 'tolerate' the behavior which Antiseptic and a heap of others find abhorrent.

There is a culture war going on..and I've felt it first hand.. militance and untolerance are the characteristics of many Gay Rights neo Nazi's.
They learned it from the students of Marcuse who were their professors.

I've got loads of issues (aah.. you already knew that right :) which will really make ur heads explode if you care about freedom.

CJ... do you see the pathway to 'true tolerance' as envisaged by Marcuse to be true? "repress opposing views" ? (I must confess you do tend to manifest that attitude at times)

More to come Australia!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 6:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the "religiously" inclined:

" ... That you Luv 1 Another, As I Luv U ... "

As far as I am concerned, and as said on numerous occasions, if 2 individuals come together in Luv, then no person has the right to interfere with that. As we are more than just "Flesh & Blood."

..

There is a definite problem with people who feel they have the right to injunct relationships of Luv, whatever the persuasion, with delusions of grandeur often being the diagnosis.

..

As to Clause 61, free speech ought not extend so far that it allows for the criticism of how 2 individuals choose to express their Luv for 1 another. It is a matter for consential partners, who are not imposing in any manner upon others.

However, whist the likes of *Proxy* et al are well contained here in their antics of so called "Free Speech," if let loose upon the vulnerable, suicide is often the result.

The catholics in particular in my view have much Blood of the innocent Youth on their hands in this regard.
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 9:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dreamy

Imagine this scenario.

Your daughter is married to a man who decides he is bisexual.

He begins an affair with a man, and your daughter knows about it...and it is ripping her and the family apart.

She goes to the man and explains so to him. "Don't you realize what you are doing with my husband is tearing us apart ...destroying a family!"

She is CRITICISING the gay man.

You blokes are extremely shallow at times.. u know TOHOR lah.. because it doesn't tweak in your dim dark heads that if you criminalize criticism of SEXUAL orientation today.. you can criminalize criticism of POLITICAL opinion tomorrow.

This is why feedom of robust expression is absolutely vital for a free society.

Do you ever criticize anyone for anything ? Do you criticize politicians.. council people.. police... ?

Outlawing 'criticism' is off the planet mate. In fact it's FASCISM.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 25 May 2010 9:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, I think you may be imagining things.

Again.

But I may be mistaken in my reading, so do put me right if I am.

>>She goes to the man and explains so to him. "Don't you realize what you are doing with my husband is tearing us apart ...destroying a family!" She is CRITICISING the gay man.<<

Are you suggesting that such a statement as you describe here is in any way actionable?

On what grounds?

If not, what are you trying to say?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 8:46:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Al
Criticising someone who is breaking up your family is not illegal. The daughter is not criticising him because he is gay only for sleeping with her husband. The lover could equally be a woman and the same would apply.

There is a big difference no matter how long you draw that bow...

This is getting into the realm of fantasy now.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 8:50:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican: << This is getting into the realm of fantasy now. >>

As it always has with our Boazy :)

Often good for a chuckle though, so long as you don't take him seriously.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 9:19:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Way to go Graham! Since the people who fell foul of posting rules will probably not compliment you and most won't bother I'll say that it is good to see you are moderating. People will just have to learn to be civil.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 10:11:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dream On,

Thank you for attempting to promote the rights of fellow human beings in a situation where you have inferred someone might be covertly attempting to repress them.

However have you considered the consequences of the type of approach you seem to be taking. To those who don't embrace the relevant lifestyle it must look like a lot of bobbing and weaving. Is it possible that things could be framed in a way that could avoid that appearance? Or at the least this could be accounted for?

eg. Person 1 "It is normal to be gay because people are not choosing their sexual attraction."
Person 2 "If that is normal then so to is paedophilia because they don't choose their sexual attraction either."
Person 1 "Don't dare discuss that it is insulting to gays." "Don't compare an abhorent practice with people having consensual adult sex.

The second person ends up with the impression that their argument cannot be addressed.

eg. Person 1 "We should protect homosexuals from unfair discrimination"
Person 2 "We need to avoid any loss of free speech or the censoring of a debate on a rather controversial issue."
Person 1 "No negativity can be expressed or it might drive people to suicide."
Person 2 "But that is a myth. Someone did a calculation based on the Kinsian 10% of the population being homosexuals and came up with inflated suicide figures. An inference was made that it must be due to discrimination. However subsequent research indicates that the group suicides for the same reasons as heterosexual youth eg. relationship breakup."

Again the second person gets the impression that they are facing an attempt to shame them into silence and may infer that that is because their argument can't be addressed.

Changing the topic slightly: What is it with you and Catholics anyway?
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 10:32:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is an unfortunate, but observable fact that the more "rights" afforded to homosexuals, the less rights remaining for normal people.
Before and after Californians voted for Proposition 8, which would codify marriage as being between a man and a woman, homosexuals ran amok committing acts of violence and property damage to those who dared support the Proposition.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm##_ftnref19
This is merely a small part of an emerging pattern.
It is not really surprising that this is so when one considers that homosexual interpersonal violence is much higher than heterosexual IPV.
"Bisexual (40.6%), gay, lesbian or homosexual adults (27.9%) are almost twice as likely to experience IPV as heterosexual adults (16.7%)"
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/IPV_PB_031810.pdf
(Exhibit 6 is interesting, although completely predictable)

Dysfunction begats dysfunction.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 26 May 2010 10:00:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy,

Dysfunctional is a broad term. However you seem to be adducing an innuendo that they are suffering from a mental illness. If so, in a secular context, that is controversial. Since the 70s when it became a lifestyle choice instead of a mental illness it hasn't been the official position. Now even the majority view in the mental health profession is that it isn't dysfunctional. If I am getting your innuendo correct you seem to take it for granted.

Sorry to be cynical but I can't help suspecting that your real motive for citing IPV is that you are anticipating that the figures will be used to show the exposure of people identifying with a same sex attraction to violence as the basis for an argument that they need extra legal protection. My suspicion is that you are 'getting in first'.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 10:24:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGIR's posts are a true example of political correctness - - - - "his" version of extreme right wing political correctness: A political correctness that has scant sympathy for, understanding of and personal respect towards homosexual people.

It's a typical ploy of far right wing dogmatists to use "freedom" as a tool to repress minorities. When minorities are assisted it's seen by these dogmatists like AGIR and others here, as an attack against their "freedom" - - - - - to repress those minorities.

The motivations behind their posts are obvious, due to the language they use.

"Real" freedom is the absolute LAST thing they're interested in. They are only interested in "their" version of freedom - - - - a type of freedom designed to specifically conform to their far right wing dogma; a very much "politically correct" freedom.
Posted by benq, Thursday, 27 May 2010 12:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
benq,

An even more common ploy in debating is the ad hominem approach. So please don't leave too quickly in case your post is taken that way. You obviously feel strongly and may be able to add a new dimension to the debate. Many who feel strongly are unable to civilly debate the topic and have been booted out.

How would you differentiate between people who opposed gay marriage and respected homosexuals and those who don't or do you believe it isn't possible?
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 1:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not catholics per se *mjbp* but rather I take gross exception to those who treat:

1. Women as less than equal

&

2. Gay people as less than equal

In fact, I find discriminatory practices based on gender or race or sexual preference to be most foul, and am not shy to say so.

Whilst I support catholics who wish to have their own little religious beliefs, they do not enjoy my support to the extent of inflicting their views upon other people.

Thus, I support the notion of the equality of humanity as a whole

AND

am strongly opposed to the likes of catholics, particularly those of the variety who like to cover up for the crime of peadophilia, as is likely the case with that deluded individual *RatSinger* and current head of a long since discredited organisation.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 27 May 2010 2:05:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With regard to the whole gay thing, there are 3 schools of thought. Those that are into it and want to convert the whole world. Those that are all moralistic and make a big fuss about it. And those that couldnt care less either way.
I could go into great detail about how fantastic vaginal sex can be, that its the most natural and normal thing in the world, how proud I am (and my parents of course) of my heterosexuality, and then set aside a day each year where all us hetero's get all dressed up and march down the street. Of course, it wouldnt work...
Unfortunately, they just dont seem to realise how vapid the constant promotion of their chosen lifestyle is.
Posted by PatTheBogan, Thursday, 27 May 2010 2:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sure sounds like something Catholic. If you mean of equal worth then I am glad that you take that stance.

"Whilst I support catholics who wish to have their own little religious beliefs, they do not enjoy my support to the extent of inflicting their views upon other people.

Thus, I support the notion of the equality of humanity as a whole."

With some being more equal than others from the sound of it. What do you mean inflict. Are you saying that you believe Catholics should be excluded from democratic processes?

"am strongly opposed to the likes of catholics, particularly those of the variety who like to cover up for the crime of peadophilia, as is likely the case with that deluded individual *RatSinger* and current head of a long since discredited organisation."

Who wouldn't be strongly opposed to those foes both the real ones and the imagined ones?
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 May 2010 2:53:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BENQ..firstly a personal note...I don't think I'll buy your monitors again :) mine stuffed up.. grrr

To your point. You claim my posts are about "OUR" version of what is correct.

This is EXACTLY where Marcuse was coming from in his essay!

Let me quote. (Paragraph 1)
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

//The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of TOLERANCE would call for INtolerance toward PREVAILING policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

HISTORIC NOTE. When Marcuse penned those words.. the Gay rights movement did not EXIST! He had that in mind along with a number of other outcomes/agenda's of the Frankfurt school of critical social theorists (Marxists).

So..in his view "Tolerance" is acheived through REPRESSION! of alternative views. At that time the 'alternative' view was the mainstream one...ie..that homosexuality was devient, and not normal and should be marginalized from mainstream society.

Now... YOU have taken up the same approach.. trying to marginalize views different from your own.

I am not trying to marginalize people here..I am trying to show how competing views are expressed through political chanels in order to REPRESS opposing views.

This thread is not about Homosexuality or gay behavior per se..it is about POLITICS and values. Please pay attention.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 27 May 2010 6:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin

'Homosexuals do not have a "free will" choice in regard to their sexual orientation, as most priests do when they take advantage of their position of power to seduce boys.'

I don't think you know how contradictory that statement is. I do know and have met practicing homosexuals. Many are lovely people trapped in sin like people fornicating or committing adultery. You can't say that a homosexual does not have a choice but a paedophile does. The promotion and misinformation given out by the 'gay' lobby has deceived many people. I hold no hate towards these people but am sick of the activist and porn industry perverting the minds of young kids.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 27 May 2010 7:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
catholics and abortion is a good example of what I mean by "inflicting themselves on others."

Our bodies are our own. If a woman falls pregnant and for whatever reason doesn't want to keep it, then that is entirely the prerogative of the individual concerned.

No one else has any rights in this regard in my opinion.

And "fire and brimstone" preaching, haranguing and the malpractice of psychology under the guise of "good morals" and "counseling" is in my view to grossly trespass against the individual concerned.

..

Same goes for any two people who share Luv and Intimacy.

It is NOT the concern of others period.

Self deluded *ratsinger* or any of his other frothing at the mouth fanatical and dogmatic adherents need to learn to shut their mouths and mind their own business lest someone take serious offense.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 28 May 2010 12:49:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dreamy.. and others.. can why try to stick to the topic?

I'm opening eyes to the political process.

If we don't understand that, it doesn't matter what our personal views are about various subjects, the politicians and the 'rights' lobbies will end up running our lives in ways we might not wish.

THAT is the topic.. grrr...

The way it works is this.

MAKE A NEW BILL... which has an innocuous name "Coroners and Justice Bill"....

Then..sneak in just one tiny clause which impacts on OTHER bills where you already feel comfortable.. and DESTROY the reason for your comfort...

This process as shown in the various bills in the opening post is about CONTROL...REPRESSION..OPPRESSION..AND VICTIMIZATION but it's nt the gays who will be victimized here..it is the heterosexual community, and we need to stand ready to defend the freedom we have.

"They may take our land..but they will NEVER take..our FREEDOMMMMM" as one of my ancestors once said :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 28 May 2010 6:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are such a hoot, [insert current pseudonym here].

>>"They may take our land..but they will NEVER take..our FREEDOMMMMM" as one of my ancestors once said :)<<

Mel Gibson is one of your ancestors?

That explains so much.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 May 2010 8:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I edited two posts above - one from Pericles and the other from CJ Morgan - because they accused AlGoreisRich of being the same person who used to post as Boaz David. This seemed like a form of harassment to me, and as the person who used to post as Boaz David had sent me an email saying they wanted to come back on the forum, but using another identity, seemed unlikely.

However, closer examination shows that there is about a 99.9% probability that AlGore etc is the same person as Boaz-David, so I apologise to CJ and Pericles and I have reinstated their posts.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 28 May 2010 9:27:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Graham. Much appreciated.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:10:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah the scourge of the internet forum, who is really who... Since it takes about a minute to open a hotmail account, maybe another minute to create an account at O.L.O., how is it rational or sensible to get all worked up about who is who? Even if O.L.O. tracked the IP addresses of people that say nasty things, it wont catch people at the library or internet cafe.

I would tend to think that the capitalisation in the thread title both states the authors' perspective on the matter, and is a covertly hostile invitation for negative comments by those less articulate...
Posted by PatTheBogan, Friday, 28 May 2010 10:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by *ALGOREisRICH* Friday, 28 May 2010 6:38:02 AM
" ... Dreamy.. and others.. can why try to stick to the topic?

I'm opening eyes to the political process. ... "

Quite right you are *BigAlBoazy* but in your attempt to "open the eyes" of some to the political process as it occurs here in Australi, I would hope that as a Believer .. A True Believer .. ;-) .. that one of your objectives would be as follows:

Metaphysically/Symbolically speaking, the Body is considered to be the Temple of the Soul, and something of the God Head (the Son aspect as some Christians such as the Gnostics and their descendants describe it) dwells therein.

A respect for the inalienable Human Rights of the Individual perhaps could be used to describe this if I were to advance a more secular term if you like?

Point being, is that in Freedom of Religion, the Temple and the God Head of others ought to be respected, which in my view does not include public speaking/preaching, or Heaven forbid legislation/regulations/instruments, that attempt to dictate whom may Luv whom etc carrying the threat of legal limbo or at best " ... to be registered like a dog ... " and I quote the (hopefully) Honourable retired High Court Judge, if one does not adhere to "convention."

Of course historically speaking, some religio/political practitioners have sought to subjugate the Temple and God Head of others, with terrible war and persecution often resulting, as we become pawns in some demented game of, well, describe it as one may.

..

Thereafter, as said on numerous occasions, I like *PattheBogan* am an unashamed eater of Puss, though my particular choice in relation to sexual preference does not mean that I care not to support those that prefer a pair of cigars, or fluff to the exclusion of the pork sword.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:37:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And Oh Yes! I nearly forgot. We had a most interesting story this morning on the quasi Catholic Church of Ukraine during AustNetwork news.

The Priests are permitted to marry (and they hold additional Eastern Orthodox traditions) and they express the view that, amongst other things, that in this way they are able to both serve the Family and the Church, and that is the way both they and their flock like it.

And of course, "surprise, surprise" no registration (allegedly) of rogue priests buggering young boys or violating young girls (over bread and wine/on the altar of Iblis) or indeed covering up for same.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 28 May 2010 1:44:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was going to write a reply to AGIR regarding his comment on my post, because I naively assumed this was a "genuine" topic by a "genuine" person. That was until the revelations about AGIR from the owner of this site Mr Young. After re-reading AGIR's posts, in hindsight I can now see it's all just "game playing" in order to elicit responses from people who don't have opinions that agree with AGIR - - - it now appears to me that this topic right from the beginning has really been about "AGIR" (that's why it was originally posted). I guess he received the attention he needed.

I'm happy to contribute, but only to "genuine" posters, who write "genuine" topics, and I'll leave the game playing to the children on this site.
Posted by benq, Friday, 28 May 2010 2:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BennyQ please improve the quality of your monitors.. mine was going haywire again recently.

For those who wish to be skeptical about the basis for this thread, feel free.

The insidious 'progressive' movement is without question seeking to limit the freedom of expression..right down to the level of 'thought'.

Clause 61 caused outrage in the UK.. and serious concerns about religious or even secular freeom of expression.

This process, of sneaking in tiny clauses which have a huge impact on other bodies of law, which in turn can effect us.. by moving the goalposts of what is allowed or not allowed, is one which the Australian public must be made increasingly aware of.

The debate about Yusuf Islam is just one example where such clauses would cause such critical discussion to be 'verboten'.

UK PUBLIC ORDER ACT. For those in doubt, they need only read the Act in some detail.(particularly re 'works_of_art')

The greater concern is for the selective application of that law.
New offenses were created in 1986 which forbade public signage which was likely to 'harrass, cause distress, fear, or provoke'

This law was in force when the following example of 'offensive, harrassing, provocation' of Catholics occurred a few years back,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/001_20060917westminster02.jpg

Imagine if the language of this sign was reversed and instead of the pope..'another' religious identity was named and the location was not a Christian Cathedral but a 'different' religious establishment say in...Brick Lane? No one was charged over this, but that is a work in progress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r93xAqUreY4&feature=fvw
The commentary in this vid is not from a supportive perspective, so.. that will make certain 'comrades' happy :) it will better fit their existing prejudice.

The same usual suspects who would defend banning 'critical discussion' of Gay behavior, would also defend the signage in the link. Hence..we have a struggle to win, hence this thread to raise awareness about repressive law and it's selective application.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 30 May 2010 7:55:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy