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 > What happened when GAY meant..joyous?

What happened when GAY meant..joyous?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
I regret a lot of changes to society. One is that dictionaries no longer adhere to an earlier truth. My The Australian Students Color Dictionary has left out 2 important words...sodomy and buggery. How is youth going to know the sin is wrong, if there is no description of it for them to study? The Holy Bible calls it sin and the consquences that go with the sin show in the lives of gay people. They sure suffer much misery from what Ive observed. Perhaps they just need to repent to get the curses lifted off them.
Posted by Gibo, Thursday, 4 October 2007 7:51:09 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
Actually individual, none of my post was about homosexuality. My butt ain't gay, but I'd like to think that if it was, I wouldn't have fundamentalist christian types dictating to me how I should live, based on prophecies they've foreseen.

There's an irony in the fact that the baby boomers have stripped things like free education away from the youth, and now criticise them for the education they have to pay for.

In fact, I had to work full time while in university. Something far fewer members of previous generations have had to contend with. So yes, I find it a bit rich to hear people prattling on about how shiftless this next generation is, when current generations now have to work to put themselves through university, or amass huge debt.
When you couple that with the fact that working families now tend to need two incomes to buy a house and the corporate world is more cut-throat than ever, it seems to me that if anything, this generation works harder than the previous ones that love to sit around whingeing about it. There's something decidedly hypocritical about the fact that most of them simultaneously say how much better things were back in their day, while also saying how the youth of today have it too easy.

Fortunately, the boomers are also in the process of stripping away free healthcare, so it's with some smug satisfaction that I note the swollen ranks of baby boomers will soon be needing geriatric care that they'll now have to pay for, and quite frankly, my sympathy is at a pretty low ebb at the moment.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 4 October 2007 9:06:27 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
TRTL,
People actually don't say that "things were better" years ago. It's experience that makes them say "things are getting worse". You say today's generation has to work harder. Ever wondered why ? Because they want everything now but can't afford it and go heavily into debt.
Baby boomers didn't have to pay that much for uni ? Well, maybe it's because they didn't force their governments to blow all the financial reserves on appeasing left wing idealism which in turn brought about the mindlessness of political correctness & society destroying social reform including the "gay" factor. Everyone makes mistakes & the b/boomers are no exception. Their biggest blunder was not putting a stop to the hand-outs & indiscriminate influx of non-genuine refugees which in turn has caused the breakdown of society we're experiencing now. Another factor is that there is double the population now to when the b/boomers arrived on the scene. More people equals smaller serves. it's as simple as that.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:45:56 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
Turn right & left.
The only reason two incomes are needed to buy a house is that two incomes
are borrowed against.
Why is that ? Simple, back in the 1970s to 80s the women insisted that when a
couple was applying for a loan that the bank take her income into account.
The banks did not want to do that in case she became pregnant.
The government in the name of political correctness agreed.

Now a bit of simple economics;
What happens if you put twice as much money into a market ?

Prices rise to meet the amount of money available.
Simple isn't it and why was everyone surprised when house prices
went so high that two incomes are now necessary to buy a house.

So the women thought they were being clever but it turned around
and bit them, now they complain they HAVE to work and they have their
babies too late in life with all the problems they are coming up against.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 5 October 2007 6:41:16 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
individual:

"Well, maybe it's because they didn't force their governments to blow all the financial reserves on appeasing left wing idealism which in turn brought about the mindlessness of political correctness & society destroying social reform including the "gay" factor"

Whilst social policies are more left wing today, you'll find that economically speaking, governments have moved very far to the right.

Your comment: because they didn't force their governments to blow all the financial reserves on appeasing left wing idealism makes no sense.

How the social reform to do with the 'gay' factor in any way expensive? compared to left wing economics like free education and healthcare, it's a trifling amount.
Honestly, put things in perspective. In economic terms, our past governments have been infinitely more left wing and have taken a far more interventionist role in everyday life.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 5 October 2007 7:50:24 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
Gibo, I've responded to your question about suicide rates resulting from CSA on the thread where you posted it.

Then I read your post on this thread.

Have you ever stopped to consider the misery and harm done by views such as your own? That much of the suffering felt by homosexuals may not be the consequence of their orientation but rather by the imposition of views such as yours on how they live their lives?

How many people have met untimely deaths because of the actions of those who think their book is more important than the lives of others?

I detest CSA but it's not a patch on the evil done by religious fundamentalists who would destroy the lives of others to maintain their own beliefs.

I read an essay recently by a christain which I will try and locate and post sometime but in part it suggested that the contradictions in the bible (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek etc) were there to allow people to choose. That the real test for salvation is the rejection of an image of god that is about hate and vengence.

A rejection of the kind of god who would condem those born homosexual to a life of misery (and misery for those around them as they try and live a lie) in order to follow the dictates of the good book.

I don't believe in god but if one did exist that idea has a lot more merrit than the message of intollerance and hate dished up by fundamentalists.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 5 October 2007 10:05:04 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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