Dear ALGOREisRICH,

With respect you are answering questions I have not put. It is a simple question I can only make simpler by asking purely on the face of it do you support the removal of sexual orientation and gender identity from the anti-bullying legislation or not?. Yes or no.

I would be confident that 95% of my countrymen would say no, not as sure about the US but I would like to know your answer.

Hi CSTEELE....perhaps I didn't quite grasp your question.

I find there is no need to 'gender orientation' to be included in anti bullying legislation, because bullying is BULLYing... no matter what the cause.

So...I DON'T agree that such a specific should be included in anti bullying law.

I DO however make the point that bullying is not difficult to define, and that calling someone a pansy or fag or whatever is no worse than calling them a religious nut, so... will we ALSO have 'religious orientation' included in your 'brave new world' ?
For that matter.. you could codify EVery type of orientation etc...but that would defeat the purpose of the law because "some-1" will claim they were not included.

PELLY

Interestingly the gay lobby and other human rights groups argue the same thing in reference to intolerance and persecution.

COMMENT "intolerance"..... now.. did I not already educate you on what the Left means by this (doncha hate the arrogance ? :)

I showed clearly from Marcuse essay of 1965 what is meant.

//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//

That's from paragraph 1. It just goes downhill from there.

So.."Tolerance" and "Human Rights" are code for the furthering of a socio political agenda or undermining the West and freedom, and the legalizing of decadence. Not my words.. but his. (when understood correctly)

BLUE :) keep you eye on the Swanston St entrance to RMIT...

*you ain't seen nuthin yet* :)

Iam sure you'll give them a piece of your mind. Good luck:)

BLUE

I thought we had already sorted that one out, Boaz.

>>Let's not get 'anally' sidetracked here.. the ISSUE is about a clash of rights and which set of them comes up trumps.<<

We all seemed to agree, some time ago, that the "rights" are those of the child, not of the prospective foster-parents. If they choose to put their own requirements at the top of the list, as they did, then they have only themselves to blame, not "the system".

But you also forgot the context of your own anal fixation - let me remind you:

<<But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate [sic] "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...>>

You connected "the sickness of their minds" with "the bodily orifice from which we defacate".

Yet you are unable to make the same connection for women...

>>...when it comes to women with women...I don't find it so icky personally, strange ? dunno.. but the principle applies, quite apart from whether "I" feel icky about this or that.<<

If you do not find lesbianism exhibits a "sickness of their minds", what exactly is it that you object to?

What "principle" are you applying?

Surely not that single verse, purportedly written by that crusty old curmudgeon killjoy, Paul?

One, single, solitary verse. Slim pickin's I'd say. Especially as nobody reports that Jesus had commented on homosexuality.

Clearly, he didn't think it worth even the most cursory mention.

Dear AGIR,

Focus on the Family was only too happy to have religion retained in the legislation they just wanted anything that would codify homosexuality out.

I am sorry to say I am struggling personally view you as a Christian. I feel Paulian is the best I can muster. Perhaps this is just me but from the tenor of many of the responses to your posts I am not alone.

Might not a reassessment of image you are projecting to the forum and the wider community be in order?