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 > Same Sex Marriage – Plebiscite

Same Sex Marriage – Plebiscite

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
Worth a read.

http://thinkingofgod.org/2016/08/dear-mr-shorten/
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 8:16:12 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
AJ,

As I understand it, there was a time when the Labor Party was all for a plebiscite, when Shorten was 'completely relaxed' about one. Still, as Keynes said, 'When circumstances change, I change my mind.'

I don't think I said that I HOPED to be dead before a Plebiscite, only that, to be sure of success, it may be wise to hold off for the next few decades. I don't hope to be dead for a hundred years yet :)

Although, given that the opportunist 'Left' would open the gates and lay on their bellies to Islamists, and as long as we fart around about trivia like the above, or the AGE giving us the 25 best ice creams in CArlton, or where to find the best kale, and if I have to read one more half-witted Tweet on Q&A, I'm willing to re-consider. A hundred more years of that ? Please take me now.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 8:24:24 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
Josephus, your Mr Bovis was doing fine until he confessed his belief in a non existent deity;

"who believes that the Bible is God’s final authoritative word in all matters of faith and practice,"

That is what his whole argument is based on, the biblical rantings attributed to a non existent deity.

This bloke, the Anglican minister, who 'shirt fronted' Shorten, was out of order and disrespectful. Shorten should have gave him his own medicine back, asking him about pedophilia in his dirty old church, but maybe Shorten has more respect than that.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 31 August 2016 8:53:02 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
Paul1405:

Shorten has said on several occasions that people are homophobic and bigoted because they oppose SSM. There is absolutely no way he can know that. Unless you can get into someone else's body it is impossible to tell what they are feeling.

Attributing feelings to people that they may or may not have is just a way of trying to manipulate the debate. Debates depend on rational argument and feelings are irrelevant to that process.

Shorten is out of order and disrespectful in attributing feelings to people that he has no way of proving. He also shows disrespect for the process of debate which the Australian people are trying to have.

Homophobia cannot be proven in anyone. There is no physical test that shows homophobia. Unless you can prove what you say then there is not much point introducing it into the argument.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 1 September 2016 9:27:01 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
Phanto,

So why is it, then, that you think you can attribute all sorts of feelings and motives to your opponents when you try to psychoanalyse them?

<<Unless you can get into someone else's body it is impossible to tell what they are feeling.>>

Is homophobia an exception to the rule?

<<Attributing feelings to people that they may or may not have is just a way of trying to manipulate the debate.>>

Not if it can be demonstrated. Which is why Josephus’s question was both good and relevant, and why I answered it.

<<Debates depend on rational argument and feelings are irrelevant to that process.>>

I’d mostly agree with this. Rational arguments need to at least come first. Once they have been presented, and no arguments have been made to contradict them effectively, then there is nothing wrong with mentioning feelings.

Although, this does run contrary to what you said a week ago when you posited the role of feelings on the question of same-sex marriage:

“A wise person takes in not just what is found in books but also what is found in their own hearts and those of their brothers and sisters.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328302)

<<Unless you can prove what you say then there is not much point introducing it into the argument.>>

“Prove” is a bit of an excessive standard. ‘Provide good reason to believe’ should be sufficient. Which goes back to why I answered that question.

While I’m here, I’ll give you an example of how can you expose my supposed fraudulence by revisiting how I exposed yours:

You have expressed to me, on more than one occasion, your desire to keep this forum clean from bulling and insincere intentions. Yet, as I mentioned on another thread, you ignore “bullying”, abuse, and insincerity when it comes from someone with whom you agree. You asked me what was wrong with being selective like this, so I pointed out to you that it demonstrated an insincerity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328402).

Hence the fraudulence on your behalf.

Now your turn. You do me now. Where is my fraudulence evident?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 September 2016 10:31:43 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
People who believe male and female gender was developed / made primarily for the procreation of the next generation, and can naturally form a union for that exclusive purpose; are not homophobic to uphold that exclusive and biological view of gender.

That Marxists wish to call them bigoted and homophobic means they cannot come up with a logical biological reason for homosexual unions but wish to justify dysfunctional sex acts between same sex partners.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 1 September 2016 8:20:28 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

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