The Forum > General Discussion > Should gay partnerships be recognised legally?
Should gay partnerships be recognised legally?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Page 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- ...
- 44
- 45
- 46
-
- All
Posted by jpw2040, Thursday, 6 December 2007 4:07:20 PM
| |
Not
Posted by jpw2040, Thursday, 6 December 2007 4:07:54 PM
| |
jpw2040, for the record I dont think you sound hateful in any of your posts. Annoyed perhaps, but I think that is reasonably understandable. You construct your arguments logically, and express yourself well - much better than some of your opponents. I've taken to skipping posts from some people as they lack too much structure to read easily.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 6 December 2007 4:48:02 PM
| |
Jpw2040,
Feeling good too! Like I said in the last post I sincerely wish you had stopped there. I did say that you wouldn’t welcome proseltyising so there is no need to affirm that. But if it were otherwise I am rather positive about Christianity for promoting love. We all have our problems but we don’t have to take them out on others. Indeed the nicer you treat others generally the less problems you encounter. Since you don't like the armchair analysis I note that the same applies even if you are feeling good and being nasty. Refraining from making false allegations about someone that need to be corrected is a much better way to honour humanity then to feign attack with comments like that when you are the attacker. You don’t have to and won’t agree with everything I say but there is no need to spread falsehoods. For that matter incessantly drawing bizarre derogatory conclusions from my comments isn’t something I relish either. An aggressive response is definitely effective when someone launches a nasty attack on me because I’m a Christian. Whether I can justify it is a difficult question. If however I was aggressive to someone who approached a discussion from a different perspective in the way that Robert normally does then it would be definitely unjustified and inappropriate. Further, it is absurd to say that only people who are completely deranged couldn’t like me. The same word fits the host of straw men you flung at me. Are you going to keep going in the direction you are going or have you got it out of your system? Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 6 December 2007 5:01:09 PM
| |
“Are you going to keep going in the direction you are going or have you got it out of your system?”
Am I _going_ to keep _going_ in the direction I am _going_? Actually, I think I might – I think I’ll stay on my equality-seeking way until it is finally attained. The dominos are continuing to fall: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22881002-5005961,00.html Stand by for lots of bleating from the christian right that Rudd has reneged on an undertaking: http://www.acl.org.au/pdfs/load_pdf_public.pdf?pdf_id=999 It turns out that the christian right’s much-vaunted political clout was just like Shakespeare’s walking shadow, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6731 At the same time, preferences from the dreaded Greens have got Labor over the line in dozens of seats, including the prize catch: Bennelong. “I can’t wait to see confetti thrown on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin,” says Rodney Croome http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2583_0_1_0_C So, going back to Foxy’s original questions (remember them? “What are the legalities of a same-sex partnership? What are their rights under the law?”), the answer is WATCH THIS SPACE Posted by jpw2040, Thursday, 6 December 2007 9:16:39 PM
| |
Jpw2040,
As you well know that isn't exactly what I meant by the way you were going. You sound like a politician. Countrygal doesn't think you sound hateful in any of your posts. If that is even remotely correct or in any case if that is the perception then I'd be wasting my time revisiting that so I'll leave it there. Admittedly, I will go off thinking that if that is the perception then this is like the deep South and Christians are the African Americans who were considered impossible to be hateful toward. Don't bother dismissing that as neanderthal as it would be expected and the sub-human thing would affirm my perception for obvious reasons. Your understanding of contemporary politics and predictions are pretty reasonable. Both sides might need to accept it. Having said that who would have thought how things would go when Christians were being fed to the lions? If the conversation doesn't flare up again and if you can resist any further er annoyance best wishes for the future. Posted by mjpb, Friday, 7 December 2007 8:36:00 AM
|
You’re absolutely right, mjpb
Apologies are always intended as a nice gesture, rather than to set the record straight, mjpb
Being a christian is never a source of bias, mjpb
Everyone welcomes proselytising in discussions about civil rights, mjpb
“Correcting” others is absolutely the best way to honour their humanity, mjpb
Everyone is grateful for a bit of loopy armchair psychoanalysis, mjpb
From you aggression is always justified, mjpb
Of course you know best what’s happening in my head, mjpb
Naturally, what happens in my bed is also your business, mjpb
Only people who are completely deranged could dislike you, mjpb
People hate you because you’re a christian, not for any other reason, mjpb
The moral high ground is commanded by the soft voices, mjpb
Women condemn their spouses’ strong opinions as a matter of course, mjpb
We’re all pathetically grateful for the tonnes of wisdom you cram into your posts, mjpb
The best pathway through life is to agree with everything you say, mjpb
Thank you, mjpb