JohnB

JohnB, as recent efforts by these religious people show there is no way to appease them, they want it all. As I have stated before in my state that "minority" has passed a constitutional amendment that prohibits not only same sex couple from marrying (they did this even though state law already prohibited gay marriage) that amendment also interferes with civil unions between heterosexual couples. They don't want to defend marriage they want to disenfranchise any one who is not religious. What about this is unclear to you? They don't want compromise, they are doing the will of God...

Moontanman, how do a minority change the Constitution? Serious question BTW. We have to have a referendum and the amendment passed by the majority of voters. How did they pull it off without majority support? Is it that with voluntary voting they could mobilise more people? We have compulsory voting which changes the picture dramatically. I know that this is tangential to the topic but I really would like to know.

John et al. In talking about "minorities" is has occurred to me that I've been making a mental distinction concerning the various religious groups but I've not made it clear in my posts. Obviously there is the extreme who will never be satisfied. Throw them a bone and they'll just want the rest of the cow. These are the ones who will oppose civil unions or any other type of unions for the gay community. Think of them like the religious version of communists. All communists are left wing, but not all left wing are communists type of thing.

At the moment, by framing the debate in the terms of "gay marriage" we are placing pretty much all the religious on one side. This is why I was talking about giving them the word for their use. It won't make any difference to the extremists but it will mollify the Catholics and the other sects, thus splitting the religious opposition. The Catholics etc will be happy because with the word given to the religious then there will be no "gay marriage", just civil unions. It also places the extremists out on their own and removes their ability to draw influence and support from the other Christian sects. Since "marriage" is reserved for the religious then they can't frame the debate as being opposed to "gay marriage" they will be forced to oppose gay civil unions.

So any time I've said that the religious would be satisfied or mollified, I was referring only to the moderates, knowing full well that the evangelicals will not be satisfied at all. But I would expect the moderates to then be withdrawing much support for the extremist campaign. The extremists are using the same tactic that the Scientologists are, they try to garner support making the argument that attacks on scientology are attacks on all religions. In a similar fashion the extremists hide their "control everything" agenda behind the cloud of "defending marriage".

This is why i think the idea would work. Only the evangelicals are really against gay unions, the others are only against gay marriage. Giving the word to the religious would mean that the evangelicals would be out on their little lonesomes fighting their fight against gay unions of any kind. They lose the ability to draw support from moderate groups and can't hide their agenda behind a smoke screen.

iNow has mentioned North Carolina and the referendum. In a reading of half a dozen or so news stories I notice one thing is quite plain. Those in favour of the Amendment framed their argument totally in terms of "defending marriage" and slipped the bits about other types of Union in "under the radar" as it were. This tactic abviously works, so we have to stop them from being able to use it.

John, that's why I think the idea would work, it deprives the extremists of their most effective tactic.

As in North Carolina this month, even using a different term was not acceptable. Why do you continue to suggest that changing the term will solve the issue when we have evidence from as recently as the last 30 days that shows the contrary?

Because as I said above, they are being allowed to frame the debate using dishonest terms. They get to frame it as "defending marriage" and add in their little extras behind the smoke screen. So I don't see the evidence as showing the contrary, I see it as demonstrating that if we continue to allow the extremists to define the debate in their terms then they will win. If we can redefine the debate into our terms, then they lose allies and tactical abilitiy.

(And I noticed you couldn't supply any "relevent secular rasons" in answer to the questions I posed. )

Oh, and John

What has the "white man" got to do with it?

Right and wrong transcend nationality, colour and religion.

If some religious group doesn't agree then they are quite simply wrong.

It was an oblique reference to "white mans burden", that it was our duty to bring enlightened government to those poor benighted natives who just didn't know any better. As to the rest, good luck with that concept. Large chuncks of the USA disagree with the rest of the civilised world as to whether the Death Penalty is "right" or "wrong". How about "Post birth abortion"? Right or wrong? And how can you prove it?

You're hearing a vocal minority. And that's it. A hateful, bigoted, minority.

That would be the first time I've heard the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England referred to as a "minority". Since the Salvation Army seems to agree does that make them a paramilitary organisation now?

1others manage OK

2 my nation pretty much does ignore them, but that doesn't stop them being wrong.

3 evangelism is one of the bigger groups of US Christians.

4 what you have put forward is a way to lose the battle.

5 simply, no

6 many of those practices are religious and is a reason why power should be taken away from religion

1. Bull. You made the comment about advocating violence in direct response to my comment where I was talking about the Catholic and C of E mainstream. If others understood that you were referring to looney Baptists then I can only gaze in wonder at their psychic abilities.

2. My nation ignores them too. Which makes them a diversion and not really germane to the topic of what to do in your nation and mine.

3. So what? We're having more trouble by morons trained by Al Gore than we are from evangelicals.

4. A sound argument indeed. Would you care to enlighten this poor simpleton as to why? Since as I pointed out the current campaign of 10 years or so has just been working out so well.

5. Riiiiiiight. Is this because discrimination is okay if you agree wiith it and is bad if you don't like it? Or what?

6. You do know that the Empire is dead, don't you? We have a much better thing now called the "Commonwealth". It let the white man put down his burden quite some time ago. We don't have to tell other cultures how to live anymore.

iNow.

You're talking about a relevent secular reason, but really it's a choice made by society. No, children cannot give informed consent, this is plainly obvious. However that this matters as a criteria for marriage is a societal choice. Our society didn't discover a scientific principle about informed consent, we chose to make that part of the deal. Similarly we chose (albeit for religious reasons, but we at least know what they are) to make marriage between a man and woman. Therefore, of course, we can choose to make the rules otherwise to what they are and include the gays. But we have to accept that all the rules are essentially simply choices and be prepared for people to challenge other choices that they happen to disagree with, like age of consent laws.

A 6 year old cannot give informed consent to a medical proceedure either. As a society we get around this by choosing to let the parents have the final say. Again the reality is that we allow this in medical matters but not in marriage purely as a societal choice. There is no reason, religious or secular for it to be this way. So since there is no actual "reason" then to allow one form of discrimination while decrying another is being a hypocrite.

Now maybe you missed it, but I always included myself in that hypocritical group. I accept that virtually all the rules of our society are nothing more than generally agreed upon choices and have little to no reason behind them. Combine that with the fact that all rules will discriminate against somebody and you're left with "Society chooses to discriminate", which it does. If it is normal for a society to discriminate then to argue that something is discrimination is rather pointless. Pointing to somebody elses discrimination while ignoring your own is a true case of pot and kettle.

So I choose to support gay unions. I'd like it be marriage as it would save my friends the cost of overseas trips but I doubt that politically it will fly with the mainstream religions. As beating my head against the brick wall of religious predjudice is something I try to avoid then the first step of "Unions" would have to do. Give it 10 years or so and everyone will be calling them marriages anyway. I choose that my society does not allow for child marriages. I'm fully aware in making this choice that I am discriminating against some people and am being a hypocrite. Tough.

You evaded my actual question, and I'd still be curious to know where you think I've engaged in "the usual tactics, name calling and finger pointing.

It was more a general comment. For 10 years at least those in favour have been crying "discrimination" and "bigot". So how well has that worked? About as well as Greenpeace against the Japanese whalers. It hasn't really advanced the cause at all and as Moontanman pointed out it's going backwards in some places. So fighting the fight using the same old terms and same old arguments isn't working, is it? None of us are in a position to actually effect the campaign so whether we think it's going well or badly is rather beside the point. But would you say it's going well? If nations were ships in a convoy then the situation could be described as "Going forward on one engine" for some while most of the rest are "Dead in the Water" and some are "Holed and taking on water".

I'm really not arguing. I'm merely explaining why I'm correct.

Do you assume that others argue from the position that they are wrong?

Here's what I think you may miss, though. My objective is not that same sex couples have access to the same benefits. That's a peripheral outcome of my objective, but not my intended goal. My intended goal is to ensure equality to people, and to ensure when we restrict that equality that we have a relevant secular reason for doing so. Nobody has yet been able to offer a single one.

Because they don't have to. What you are calling a "relevent secular reason" is really nothing more than a societal choice. You live in Texas where the age of consent is 17, just to the north is Oklahoma where it is 16. What beside "They chose to have it like that" is the relevent secular reason for the difference? What is it that makes the youth of Oklahoma special compared to Texans? Do they develop faster and therefore can handle a lower age of consent? Can you prove this?

You keep waving this "relevent secular reason" as if it means "relevent logical reason" when it doesn't. The drinking age in the USA is 21 yet according to Wiki;

As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws.

Again, except for "Because the Legislature chose to make it that way", what is the "relevent secular reason" for this disparity?

Sure, there are times when there are "relevent secular reasons" to restrict the activities of some people, for example the mentally impaired come to mind, but for the most part it doesn't exist. There is no "reason" beyond "they chose to do it that way" and the main reason they chose to do it that way was because that was the most politically viable option at the time.

We're no better. It used to be 21 for everything and now it's all over the place. What was magical about 21 years of age? Was there a religious reason or a relevent secular reason for choosing that number? I doubt it. It was far more likely that a number was needed and for one reason or another we chose 21.

Some people confuse the rules set down in a bronze age book for laws of nature and this is wrong, but you mistake "choices" for "reasons" and this is also wrong.

Sure, compromise might be better than where we are today, but you still need people like me who are willing to stand up passionately on principle alone and fight for what is right as opposed to settling for what is just practical.

Generally I agree, but, what is "right"? What is considered "right" varies from time to time, era to era and nation to nation. You treat "right" as an absolute that you have intimate knowledge of, sorry but you just have your opinion. "Right" is a relative term not an absolute. Generally the only people who believe that they are right as an absolute are totalitarians or religions, or lunatics.

It was perfectly clear that , if the researchers were saying it was harmless then they were not talking about everyone, all the time.

Without qualifiers it is not clear at all. Claiming it is doesn't make it so.

Can you quantify at what level (say a percentage of the population) where it changes from harmless to harmfull?

I have a tendency to assume that many disagreements are due to people reading different meanings into the same thing and that by approaching a compromise in good faith these differences can be got past. I've also found that if the person on the othe side is emotionally unable to even consider the possibility that other interpretations exist besides their own, this is a pointless exercise. Please don't injure your arm while slapping yourself on the back.

Germane to this topic there are three things for you to consider;

1. I'm Australian and therefore cannot be a "Republican" in the american sense.

2. I'm moderate right wing on our spectrum which puts me pretty much in the Democrat camp on the american one.

3. I'm a Monarchist and therefore not even a "Republican" in the australian sense.

But life is just so much easier if you can place people in little boxes and be derisive, isn't it? We mustn't let reality get in the way of a good self indulgent fantasy.

I think of statesmen as dealing with long-term, enduring, big-picture, global situations and solutions.

To a degree I agree. I just think of them more as having a vision for a better future, either for their particular nation or the world in general. The closest we have is that our opposition leader put forward the idea that since Asia is going to increase in population that it would be a good idea to build dams and irrigation in the top end of Australia to allow us to export more food.

As you can imagine, the Australian Greens had a fit over the idea. I'm not sure why 100,000 square miles of useless land should be kept useless, it's not like we're short on deserts or poor land, but there you go.

But where are the dreamers? Those who went before gave us the Snowy River Scheme, they built the highway networks across entire continents and the current crop think that 30 windmills in a valley is a major achievement.

*Note to self*

Don't bother looking for the cause of a misunderstanding. Progressives are just so f*cking certain they are right that it must be that everybody else is wrong.

Moontanman

Your constant effort to associate the movement for gay rights and some insane group of pedophiles is as despicable as it is dishonest.

I'm not associating them at all. How many times do I have to say this? The point has repeatedly been that if you allow one form of discrimination and object to another then you are a hypocrite. This means that arguing from the POV of "discrimination is always wrong" is literally invalid because two wrongs don't make a right. Similarly the simple argument "It's discrimination" is pointless because no matter how you write the rules you are going to discriminate against somebody, unless you want a no rule free for all and I doubt that anybody is advocating that.

Now if you want to argue that discrimination due to genitals (gay union) is wrong but discrimination due to age (thus preventing the sickos getting their way) is okay then you are both discriminatory and a hypocrite. As this happens to me my POV, welcome to the club. I'm quite content to be called hypocritical and discriminatory on this. Do you understand now?

John

I was talking about the guys in the video clips not the pope.

The bullshit seems to be coming from your direction.

Mate, I'm having great trouble keeping track of who you are talking about. Sometimes it's the general public and sometimes it's the yankee extremists. I'll grant the Americans have problems, but the extremist types aren't a large percentage of the population down here and I doubt they are all that large in England. So for our nations we can ignore them.

The "gay marriage" battle is a political one and will be won or lost in the hearts and minds of the general public. Not american nutjobs but those quiet parishoners who go to Mass or C of E service on Sunday. These are the people that must be convinced that the option put forward is a good idea and supportable. They are also the ones who quite often don't give a rats arse about whether gays have a Union or not, but they do feel that the word "marriage" should be reserved for men and women.

John and Mary public are not "gay haters" and don't advocate violence towards gays. If any group is most likely to go out gay bashing it's the skinheads and their friends, groups that are strangely absent from church congregations. It has been my experience with these groups (and I've fought some of them) have very little in the way of spiritual or religious opinions. They're generally cowards who think that gays would make an easy target. That these "people" attack only in groups gives a good measure of their "bravery". But to quote G'Kar "They made a very satisfying thump when they hit the ground".

But you don't win a political battle by telling 50% of the population that they are wrong and the tiny minority (and gays are a minority) are right and that the majority must change or else. You don't win people over to your side by chucking insults around that if they don't agree then they must be advocating violence against gays.

The suggestion I put forward about giving the church the word "marriage" was a way to win the battle. For now, it would give the gay community everything except the word and would placate those in the general public. Within 20 years all Unions would be Marriages in the vernacular and the battle is over and more importantly is won. There is nothing that can be done to change the minds of the extremist minority and so it is pointless to even try. All you will do is make them feel righteously persecuted or some such rot.

Discrimination is, of course, unavoidable.

Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make. So doesn't it follow that the argument "It's discrimination" is sort of pointless?

However, as has been pointed out, child abuse has a victim and is a crime.

That is a purely cultural perspective. I happen to agree as it is my cultural perspective, but I have to accept the fact all the same. Quite a number of cultures have practices that we would define as "child abuse" and who are we to say that they're wrong? I think they would be wrong, but it would be bloody hard to "prove".

iNow.

You make some good points but we seem to be reading the same thing in different ways. Taking the comment;

"Marriage between a man and a woman always has an inherent capacity for, and orientation towards, the generation of children, whether that capacity is actualized or not."

You view this as "rubbish" because of infertile or post menopausal people. Whereas I'm reading it this way "Of the three possible pairings, male/male, female/female and male/female only the pairing male/female has an inherent capacity for procreation. Whether it is actualized in a particular couple or not is beside the point, it is the only pairing where procreation is inherently possible."

All his later comments are based on "marriage" having the definition he describes and should be read in that light. Although defing marriage as a long term relationship entered into with a view to engendering new life is a bit of an iffy argument when applied to the elderly.

Finally, he puts forth the old canard of religious freedom, or how opening marriage to same sex couples would harm religious freedom, and how important it is to protect religious freedom. Well, I've got news for you guys... Nobody is taking away or impacting your religious freedom. Nobody is forcing any churches to perform any marriages they do not want to perform. They are free to only marry couples they choose to allow to marry. That was never in question, so the issue of religious freedom is entirely moot. It's a complete red herring.

This might be true in the USA, but not elsewhere. As the refernces in the letter point out, under anti discrimination laws if a gay marriage is to be fully equal to a heterosexual one, then it is discriminatory and illegal to deny gays the right to marry in the church of their choice. It would not surprise me if Ausrtralian laws are somewhat similar. You have to admit that it's more than a bit odd to have anti discrimination laws that apply to who can get married, but not where. It does come down to how the laws are actually written in various nations. The legal situation in Britain is summarised quite well here.

“In order to permit same sex couples to marry the Government merely needs to repeal s11© Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which says ‘11 Grounds on which a marriage is void; c)that the parties are not respectively male and female’.”

 

“However if it does repeal that sub section then those organisations and individuals which are authorised to register Marriage (which of course includes Church of England Priests by virtue of their office) would at that point be obliged to perform Same Sex marriages unless there is a specific statutory exemption,” he said.

 

The current state of the law, Mr. Addison wrote on his blog was that there was no difference between “Civil” as opposed to “Religious” marriage [as] both are in law the same thing and merely take place in different premises.”

So without specific exemptions, then the fears are not groundless.

the desire of religious people to impose their personal beliefs on to the rest of us.

Can't you see that they are viewing it in exactly the same light but from the other side?

I'm really quite curious to know what specifically I have posted in this thread that would give you such an impression. Religion has been rather peripheral to my comments, or at best supplemental.

Mate, you are possibly the most evangelical athiest I know. If you've ever missed the chance to sink a boot into a religious person I missed it. Your writings have long shown that you hate religions (I'm not too fussed on them either) and view people with religious or spiritual views as at best deluded and possibly demented. They are certainly "faulty" in some way since they have "imaginary" friends. So I have to wonder whether you really care about the topic or just relish the opportunity to demonstrate why religious people are "wrong".

I believe in existance after death and you don't. The only difference is that you seem to have a burning need to tell people like me that we are wrong. Me? I don't care. I have no desire or need to convince you of something that is currently unprovable. Either you are right or I am. In 80 years time, either we are both in non existence or we'll be sucking down some spiritual tequilas in the fourth dimension from the left. Either way makes no difference in the "here and now" and to spend time and energy on which is right is a waste to me.

I simply want nothing more than to live my life in such a way as to ensure that the Westboro Baptist Church pickets my funeral. I don't know that this would give my life "meaning", but it would just be nice to p*ss them off that much.

Back on topic. I put forward the "Civil Union" and giving the churches the word "marriage" idea as a possible way to appease the mainstream church going population (which is who the polls listen to) and win the battle, ending the gay marriage argument forever. I've been responded to with exactly the same terms and arguments that have failed to advance the gay marriage cause for the last 10 years. They say the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect a differnt outcome. So how have the usual tactics, name calling and finger pointing been working out for ya?

If what you've been doing for 10 years hasn't worked then here is a novel idea "Try something different". Throw the religious a bone and try for a compromise that people can live with for now and will give the desired end result in the future. Of course, this means you have to give up the victory dance and all the "Nyah, nyah, we beat you" and I suspect this is the real reason why compromise is not to be considered. The enemy must be utterly destroyed, you can't allow them even a partial win. (In the Americans case I can understand this attitude. You can't allow those looney Baptists a win.)

Is it just me? Or do others also think that the calibre of our current crop of politicians is pretty small?

Not knowing the ins and outs of US politics I won't comment on whether Obama is a good or bad President, but he certainly seems "Lacklustre" from the outside. Either lacking a grand dream for the future of his nation or is unable to communicate that dream. All the Republican opponents remind me of generic talking heads. Carefully media trained but no substance.

Down here we have Gillard who is at best a plain out and out liar and at worst certifiably delusional. She's living in a dream where for two years every poll has shown we don't want a carbon tax but she still thinks we support it. (Polls are 83%-87% against) Her party has been defeated in every election since the last Federal one with the numbers against constantly climbing. Queensland was the latest loss where they went from being the government down to 7 seats. Anybody who thinks that their party can still win when they only have 30% of the Primary vote is, I think, mentally unstable. Tony Abbott, the opposition leader is a nice guy who does a lot of things out of camera view but a Statesman? Not really. A serious down to earth plodder who will make a quiet but effective Prime Miniater.

The Brits. Well I have trouble even telling the two sides apart any more quite frankly, but there certainly doesn't seem to be a Churchill in the pack anywhere.

Europe seems to be more about bending the knee and kowtowing to the faceless 'crats in Brussels. God forbid that any nation think differently from the approved opinions of the Eurozone comptroller generals.

Okay, we don't have WW 3 on the horizon but there are still quite a few problems and some decent Statemen would probably come in handy.

So where are they?

Can anybody think of a politician who comes up to the standard of the ones from 50 - 60 years ago?

Moontanman

Children do not have the same rights as adults, your comparison fails.

Then you are happy to discriminate on the basis of age. Congratulations, so am I.

You seem to have a real worry with this, is there a movement I am unaware of that supports child marriage?

Actually yes. NAMBLA. And if they can't get that, they will be quite happy for the age of consent laws to be dropped.

So couple who are sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry?

That you and the following posters even make this point demonstrates the futility of posting links. You won't bloody read them. In essense the mainstream religious view is that marriage be kept between a man and a woman becuase only in that pairing is procreation possible as a general rule. They view that their thinking is in line with biology and that the pairing of male and female is required for the continuance of the species. In their view "marriage" is the way to recognise that pairing.

Even if you assume that most Christians do not have a problem with gays why do you think they right to control the word marriage? The church no more owns the word marriage than it owns the word moral. Simply stepping up and laying claim to a term doesn't make you own it...

Jeez. How about I'm trying to come up with a way to get through the problem while pissing off and irritating the least number of people? Which has to be better for a nation than for a small section to demand something and to hell with anybody elses opinion. The answer in each nation to the gay marriage situation will be political, it will be a compromise of some sort. What I suggested was a compromise that most people could probably live with.

Fascinating to watch the American left refusing a compromise position when they've done nothing but bitch and moan for years that the conservatives refuse compromise.

They're coming, they are spreading, they intend to Evangelicalize the world, they intend to take back society and as long as so called main stream Christians don't do anything to stop them they are as bad as moderate Muslims who don't condemn the radical fringes.

Amazing. And if I were to say the same about the green groups planning world control in Rio I'd be called a conspiracy nut. Newsflash for you. Every special interest group, religious or secular will do whatever it can to increase its influence and power. This is reality, deal with it.

John,

Because they advocate violence towards gays.

Can you provide a quote from the Pope? Or a Cardinal? How about the ArchBishop of Canterbury? Not everybody who disagrees on gay marriage also advocates violence towards gays. That is simply bullshit. Or are you suggesting I beat my friends up on a weekly basis? There are a few who do so advocate. There have been people from the climate warming camp who advocate violence towards us sceptics as well, does this mean that all warmers do? No, and nor do all who disagree on gay marriage advocate violence. Roughly 50% of the British population is Christian, let's say that half of those are against gay "marriage". That means that 1 in 4 people that you pass in the street "advocate violence towards gays". Really? That many? It's a wonder there are any gays left.

Also, claiming that, because we advocate marriage for gay couples, means that we advocate under-age sex is a strawman.

Wrong again. Is it that people can't read or am I not expressing myself clearly. I am saying that it is hypocritical to complain about discrimination on the basis of sex and at the same time condone discrimination on other grounds. If "discrimination" is wrong, then discrimination on the basis of age is wrong. I don't take that view. I take the view that no matter how you write the rules you will finish up discriminating against somebody. I'm quite happy for that discrimination to be on the basis of age and ability to knowingly consent.

iNow, read Cardinal Pells statement, he covers most of what you are talking about.

I must admit, given the tone of many comments I do now wonder how many people really give a rats arse about gay marriage at all but are very happy for any reason to stick it to a Church or three. Hatred of religious people seems a far stronger motivator that support for the gay community.

Tungsten/ halogen lights like to be kept hot. It's when they are run cool , for example via dimmers, that they fail rapidly.

If the envelope isn't hot enough the chemistry doesn't work.

Well, that torpedoes the idea they were getting too hot.

Lighthouse10 the page you link to is incorrect. The halogen replacements for incandescents are quite widely available in general stores and supermarkets in Australia. It's from the local supermarket that I buy boxes of them. While the range will be smaller or non existent in smaller general stores this is more due to a lack of shelf space than any policy or stock preference.

For me the three last the least are the kitchen, dining and lounge room ones. These go on when it gets dark and will be on for 6 or so hours. Each one is in a different fitting and surround so it's hard to blame them. Lights that go on and off as needed, toilet, bathroom etc seem to be lasting as long as the old ones but it's hard to tell as they blew so rarely anyway.

For light quality the blue/white of the halogens is a much better light than the older yellow light, although I would prefer a "daylight" light CFL if they were readily available.

John, good luck on that bayonet style replacement LED. They are out there but the prices I've seen are hardly "reasonable" somewhere between $45 and $50 AUD seems the standard.

OK, so now we have established that you think a toilet in Brisbane makes any difference to someone in the UK and you still don't understand that some things are OK from time to time, but not as a habit (like eating too much).

More that cultural background has a bearing on attitude towards what is okay and what isn't. If there is a shortage of facilities in England then more people would be caught short and so it wouldn't be a big issue. Down here with a large number of facilities (and you can't even open a footpath coffee shop unless you provide access to facilities for patrons) then the only reason for getting caught short and using the street is pure bloody laziness. Lazy bastards who make a mess for others to clean up are frowned upon.

More importantly, unless you believe that the original research paper I cited included "streets running with piss" as one of the scenarios they described as "harmless" then your scenario is a strawman.

Jeez, I'm really gettin sick of this strawman bullshit. If you can show that the study involved was referring to only occasionally urinating in the street then I might agree, but it was talking about the concept in general.

Wait one.

This is perhaps the centre of our disagreement, we are reading it two different ways and the wording is ambiguous on this. You are reading "urinating in the street" as to mean occasionally and by few people, whereas I'm reading it as a concept "Is it okay to urinate in the street" meaning anybody at any time.

Be that as it may, how about going down to your local train station and talking to the staff there? Ask their opinion on the subject? Maybe in your world these things don't matter, but I assure you that in the world of those who have to clean up the mess it matters a great deal. I've generally found that the attitudes of those who make the mess and those who have to clean up afterwards differ quite substantially.

That's why I stressed it was anecdotal. There is always the bias towards complaints.

Can you really not see the difference?

Can you not see that you are complaining about discrimination on the grounds of sex and condoning discrimination on the grounds of age? If discrimination "is never ok" and should be opposed then the logical result is the repeal of "Age of Consent" rules. This is political reality.

I am quite happy to be called "discriminatory" if it stops child marriages, I'd wear the title with honour.

Put bluntly, stop talking in absolutes, it's silly. And stop calling "Strawman" when somebody points out the logical consequence of your comment.

John, why do you characterise people as "gay haters"? Except for the people like in the vids, most mainstream people don't "hate" gays, they really don't care one way or another. They simply think that marriage is based on procreation and should be kept between a man and a woman. For many people I've spoken to it has nothing to do with gays per se at all, it is an argument about the meaning of the word marraige. In another thread iNow and I were arguing about the meaning of the term "Climate Change". Does that make me a Texan hater? Or Anti American? Nope, it just means we were arguing about the meaning of a word.

This is why so many parishoners have no problem with the idea of gay civil union marriages. From their POV the gays get their right to wed and the meaning of the word marriage remains intact. As I've said before it's about the word itself and the church isn't going to give up without a big fight. So let them have the word, that is what they want and it pulld mainstream support out from under the extremists. Although America has a much higher percentage of nutters, so this answer might not work for them. But for the average Church of England or Catholic, if the word is reserved for the church they will be happy and really not care what the gay community does.

So, and this may not be true for the US, but down here the "haters" are a small minority, but those who believe the word refers to a man and a woman form a large group.

Hm, the necromancy is strong with this one.

I don't know that it makes that much difference, although I would expect some variation in efficiency.

I've used the same induction furnace to smelt aluminium, bronze and various grades of iron and steel. They're power sucking brutes and a few percentage points either way in efficiency doesn't seem to bother them.

Also, to supplement Moontanman's central point, these types of people are not as much of a minority in the US as you seem to think, John. That type of thinking is really quite common and prevalent.

Hmmmm, looking at Wiki I see what you mean. You have more "Evangelical Protestants" than Catholics or "Mainline Protestants". No wonder you're worried, I would be too. Objection withdrawn.

Down here the closest to American Baptists, etc are the "Uniting Church" which combined the Baptists, Methodists and a few others some time ago, but they are less than 5% of the population and have quite mainstream views, as in aligned with the Catholics and Church of England. I don't think people like the fools in the vids wouldn't make it 1% of the population.

That shouldn't matter. It is not ok even for 99.9999999999999...% of the population to say it's ok for us to use the word marriage but not you. Discrimination is never ok no matter what percentage of the population thinks it is. The ONLY victims in this case are the ones being discriminated against, not those that are doing the discriminating.

Welcome to political reality. Any decision in the political sphere will discriminate against somebody. This is reality, deal with it. The only other option is no rules at all which turns "child molesting" into "pre marital sex". Unpleasant perhaps, but we wouldn't want to be discriminating on the basis of age, would we?

It is odd, and I wouldn't mind knowing the reasons myself.

I generally use Mirabella or Phillips bulbs, both of which are (supposedly) good quality. These bulbs are costing me between 3 and 5 dollars each, so they ain't cheapies. One of the reasons for buying the boxes of 10 is that the price is cheaper in bulk, but still some $30 per box.

One thing I do note is that the ones that blow are all in covers of one form or another. I don't mean lampshades but frosted glass or the like. The CFL that has lasted quite some time is a yellow anti insect one that is outside and fully exposed. It's under the awning, but has no cover on it and frankly I would have thought that if they were really fragile it would blow more often.

The only thing I can think of is that halogen etc bulbs don't like heat and when in a frosted glass light cover the heat builds up and shortens the life. I wonder this because ever pic I've seen of light bulbs being tested the bulb is always bare, never in a cover.

Aside from that it's got me stumped.

You're lucky to have no problems, anecdotally the reverse is far more common.

I find it hard to believe that you've never been as drunk as I have been, but that's the only possible explanation.

That could be it. Ever since I got my drivers licence I've hated depending on others for transport so I always drive. Since drink driving is borderline insanity in my books I have always been extremely careful as to my drinking habits. I've always found it somewhat silly to spend $200 on booze to have a night you can't remember. If you can't remember it, then how do you know you had a good time? I drink in moderation, have great nights out and the memories to prove it.

There are very few public toilets in many cities in the UK.

Really??? I'm quite surprised! Even the smallest town in Oz has public toilets, upkeep done by the Shire Council. We also have them in roadside bays where the Interstate truckies pull in for a snooze, heck we put them by the side of the road so that you can stop for a pee while touring. Just about every public park has facilities. We are a travelling nation and even the smallest town wants to provide clean facilities for visitors, it's a matter of civic pride. We joke that there is no Aussie town without a pub, but the truth is that you won't find one without a public loo.

If you look at Google Earth and the centre of Brisbane. We have facilities in the City Hall, the bus station under King George Square next to City Hall, two sets in the Queens Street Mall 200 yards east of City Hall, another one in Albert Street just off the Mall and about 5 in the "Myer Centre" next to Albert Street. Most of these are open 24/7. All central train stations have facilities and are open 24/7.

It wasn't that long ago I was talking to the Head Ranger for the D'Aguilar National Park (about 10 mins drive west of me) and complimented him and his staff on the cleanliness of their facilities, about 8 or 10 sets spread around the park. If there is a picnic spot or a lookout, there are facilities. Seriously, an area or town that lacks clean public facilities will find itself avoided by the travelling public. Nothing kills tourism faster than dirty public toilets.

It took a bit to find it but on GE at 28⁰ 17' 15" S 157⁰ 57' 05" you'll find a pullover in the middle of nowhere. The street view doesn't show it but these are public toilets supplied for the travelling public and are some 10km from the nearest town. I drive past them every month or so.

Also, the one arguing bullshit was, I think, the one who thought that a person taking a leak in the street was the same as the streets "running with piss".

So it's alright if one or two do it, but a bad idea if everyone does it? Who decides who the favoured few are? Sorry, if it's wrong for most people to it, then it is wrong for all.

It's another strawman.

It's not a strawman at all. You were arguing that it "didn't matter" and was "harmless". If that was true then you would indeed walk through it and eat breakfast in the aroma. If you won't do those things, then it effects your decision and therefore "does matter" and would cause (financial) "harm" to the business involved. It's all well and good to argue some theoretical principle, but at some point you have to apply that theory to reality and see if it holds up. I gave a concrete example to test your argument about not mattering and doing no harm.

What your response would be to a real situation demonstrates whether your idea is sound or just platitudinal. It's like some people are very loud about "gay equality" yet strangely don't seem to have any gay friends or associates. By giving a concrete example I was endeavouring to find out whether you would walk the walk, or would just talk the talk.

New standards make older technology obsolete, forcing upgrades, all the time.

True, but this is more like not making old mouses and requiring a new motherboard when you want to replace a failed mouse with a new one.

I'd just like the choice. If the new bulbs lasted as long and saved me money I wouldn't have a problem, but they don't. So I have had a large extra expense dumped on me so that some greenies and others can get warm fuzzies. If they want warm fuzzies then let them foot the bill and not dump it on other people.

Funny how people (mainly) on one side of the political fence are so quick to deny others any choice when they always demand it for themselves.

Mostly, just ensure the neutrals are all connected properly and you're properly grounded throughout.

Virtually all houses here now have RCDs usually set to about 30 milliamps. If there is any real wiring fault you know about it instantly.

Can you let me know what the Left's equivalent of Fox is please?

Well, in Australia it is the Fairfax media group and the ABC. (Our version of the BBC). Neither of which have a single conservative/right leaning person on the payroll as reporter or editor.

Also, re "Down here both sides have a tendency to hand out "Jobs for the boys" the only real difference is that the conservatives make at least a bit of an effort to ensure the "boy" can actually do the "job", "

Not reliably

Down here means Australia. What english politicians do is not my problem.

We've put pollies from both sides in jail before now and are quite happy to do so again. Probably the next one will be Craig Tomson. While a union official it appears that some $500,000 went through his credit cards for various "services" and cash advances. The investigation, with the "help" of our left wing Prime Minister has only taken 3 years. The government is only in by 1 vote, so if Tomson is charged and found guilty he will be removed from Parliment and the left wing Labor government will fall. Gillard and cronies have been doing everything in their power to delay any sort of end to this problem. Some of the services BTW were $5,000 weekends with "Ladies of negotiable affection" paid for on the Union credit card. The Prime Minister has "full faith" in Tomson.

Tomsons story is that somebody broke into his home and stole his mobile phone and credit cards after he was asleep. The phone was used to book the prostitutes and the credit card was used to pay for the weekend. After having a wonderful time the thieves then broke into his house a second time to return the phone and credit cards, which is why he never reported them missing. This apparently happened 4 or 5 times.

I doubt that even a british pollie can match that story.

Anyway, the simple truth down here is that ideological purity or being a mate of the left is far more important for getting a "job" than ability is, whereas the right at least asks "What do you know about this industry?" This is why we have people who majored in "Political Science" in charge of the railway network. One would think that a knowledge of transport and trains would be more useful, but he was a staffer for a Labor Senator.....

Actually, the Church already has a word for the marriage ceremony that isn't a marriage ceremony.

It's called a blessing.

So they do, I'd forgotten that one. I wonder how many have it?

After all, it's not just religions for whom " it is actually the word that is important, not the act. " many people think the same way and they therefore think that they should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

I think this is a nub of the problem. When looking at the total population, how many will be offended by gays being able to use the word "married" as opposed to those offended that they can't.

So we give the church "Blessing" instead? Sounds cool. I must admit that my secondary thought in giving them the word "marriage" was that over a course of years with a new generation growing up and seeing Civil Unions and Marriages being treated exactly the same and both using the same terms for most things then it would become standard usage for gays who had a civil union to be referred to as "married". Give it 20 years and everybody regardless of gender, civil union or church ceremony, will be "married" in the general vernacular. At that point the battle is over.

Let's be honest here about the mindset and motivation with which we're really dealing on this issue.

By all means let's be honest. But quoting extremist Americans and portraying their attitude as the mainstream one is not honest. These people represent very small minoriities out of the religious population and using them as examples of the "mindset and motivation" is the same as calling all right wing people nazis or left wing supporters Stalinist. It is not an honest portrayal of the situation at all to portray the extremes as the majority.

Cardinal George Pell represents all Australian Catholics, a far larger number than those pathetic little wannabes in the vids. Read his submission to the Senate Committee on same sex marriage in Australia here. His words are far more indicitive of the "mindset and motivation" of the mainstream churches than a couple of backwater Baptists.

And on a lighter note. While trying to find some youtube vids of the looney aussie religious (they do exist but are an object of derision) I got this vid in the "viewing" list. How cool is this Dalek cake?

How "The Battle of Mount Ainslie" is related to "The Ultimate Dalek Cake" I have no idea. Maybe it's because the witches and gays exterminated the fundamentalist rally.

In my case the three that blow the most are the kitchen, dining room and lounge room. These are halogens, CFLs won't fit in the light covers.

Should I cook by candlelight? It's an open plan house and these three are often the only lights on.

I don't know, but there is nothing I can do about the wiring I just have to pay the extra expense. Maybe the brands or standards are different between nations? Perhaps American CFLs aren't as electrically "fragile" as Aussie ones?

I find the "wiring" idea a bit implausible simply because when this comes up in conversation I've yet to meet the Aussie who says the new bulbs last as long as the old, everybody complains about having to change bulbs more often. Anecdotal, I know, but this is the prevailing opinion. It's hard to believe that such a high proportion of homes need rewiring.

It also strikes me that there is something intuitively arse backwards about making the house wiring fit the bulb. It's like making a new rear view mirror and then expecting people to modify their cars to use it. Far more sensible to make something that works with the available designs and technology.

It is instructive to note that the right wing has both:

An unshakable belief in an economic theory (the free market) which rests on the population being fully informed and being logical and

Fox news which resolutely ensures that they are not.

 

It's my opinion that if you need to tell lies to support you position, then your position is wrong.

The thing is John that the Left wing has the same problem. You see it all over but most strongly in American politics where both sides believe themselves to be pure and the other side is the den of evil.

Down here both sides have a tendency to hand out "Jobs for the boys" the only real difference is that the conservatives make at least a bit of an effort to ensure the "boy" can actually do the "job", while the left makes no effort at all. But both sides still do it, arguing about who does it better sort of misses the point.

Okay, I think we all largely agree that it's better to use intended facilities when urinating... but two things. 1) Are you trying to suggest you've never pee'd somewhere you weren't supposed to? Come on, I would find that very hard to believe. 2) What the hell were we even talking about that got us on to the subject of public urination? Perhaps we could at least attempt to bring this back on topic?

As for 1) No, I don't think so. I was taught from a young age to wash my hands after going, this meant that if you can't wash your hands, don't go. I've yet to see the town or city without adequate amenities so there is really no excuse for not using them. Those who drink to excess and finish up using the streets I view as abrogating their adulthood. Only children and animals can't plan ahead enough to encompass a pit stop, aduls who intentionally put themselves in that condition are not worth the word "adult" anymore.

2) Came from a linked report suggesting that conservatives worry about things that "aren't important", one of those unimportant things being public urination. My argument is that in this case the choice of what was or was not important was totally subjective and couldn't possibly give an objective result to research. I further argue that those who say that it isn't important are actully lying to themselves. Since they won't walk through it or would take their business elsewhere to escape the smell then it is actually important to them due to effecting their decision making process.

I should add that while there may be differences between nations it has been my experience that when discussing "little things" that "don't matter" the proponents invariably mean that it doesn't matter if they or their mates do it, but it would be a bad thing if everybody did it. The double standard and sense of entitlement this involves I find extremely nauseous.

Phi, I think that is an illusion that you have been sold. Both partys are up for sale. The strongest backers for the sugar cartel and their large subsidies are from the Democrats. Similarly if the Dems control the Upper and Lower House and the Presidency then having Republicans in your pocket isn't much use. Business wants to do one thing, make a profit, so if the Dems are in power then the lobbying money and bribes (sorry, advertising revenue) is spent on the Dems, if the Republicans are in power then they get the dough.

I don't know which party has the Senators where say McDonnell Douglas are, but I'll bet the song is the same every time. "Senator, if you support what we want then there is a nice big campaign cheque for you. If you don't support what we want we'll give it to the other guy."

The fact that so many Americans seem to believe that only "the other side" are dirty and their "own side" are lilly white and would never do anything so morally wrong is highly amusing (and not a small bit worrying) to me.

Things like Mooneys book are trying to show why one side or the other is superior. It doesn't matter what side it's from the idea is always to show why progressives are more "whatever" than conservatives or that conservatives are more "whatever else" than progressives and this rather misses the whole point.

What matters when deciding which side should run a nation is expounded policies, and American partys just don't have any beyond pissant little media grab one liners. "We believe that America should have a strong defensive military" is a statement not a policy. A policy is about funding, not just for this year but into the future. If need be what changes should come to allow the military to meet expected threats over the next 15 years or so. Whether America can afford to continue to be the worlds policeman or not and if not then how this job can get spread around. A policy is about money and timing and timeframes for implimentation over 10 years, not 10 seconds on the 6 o'clock news.

Both sides encourage the one upmanship because it hides the lack of policies and forethought. If you can "prove" that your side is smarter, or more logical then obviously your policies will be the better ones. No need to see them ahead of time or discuss them, since they come from the "smarter" party they must be the best.

And while they keep you arguing between yourselves as to just who is the "smarter" or whatever you haven't really noticed that you are so far in hock that the Chinese now own your underwear, you're not particularly liked in large areas of the planet and even your friends don't really trust you anymore.

Think about that last one especially. 15 years ago it was an odds on bet that if little Oz got into a fight with the much larger Indonesia then the USA would step in on our side. We are about to drastically increase our military frankly because we now think that you would intentionally delay your decision until it was too late. In short, we no longer trust our "great friend" America. To be clear, this separates the American people from the American government. The Aussies I know think that the American people would be screaming blue, bloody murder and wanting to help but the government would much around and vacillate until they could present you with the fait acompli.

Fortunately China isn't too popular around here either, and they will sell us generation 5 aircraft, which America won't. Actually the new Russian ones are very good too and less than 1/4 of the price you are asking for 2nd line stuff.

I don't know about the experience of others, but old style incandescents are banned down here in Oz.

The newer style halogen ones are about 6 times the price and last about 1/3 the time. Where I used to buy bulbs as needed (I just had one spare of each wattage I use) I now buy in boxes of 10. I get about 3 months out of a new style bulb compared to literally years out of the old. The new ones might be more efficient, but they in no way save me any money. What little I save on power is more than eaten up by the cost of buying new bulbs.

CFLs last about a year except, oddly, the yellow anti insect one outside which has lasted a good 3 years.

It might be to do with the wiring granted, but it strikes me that spending $2,000 to rewire the house and save $20 per year might not be a great investment. Actually I'm renting so I can't rewire anyway, but you see the point.

there are 19,500 or so ministers of the Church of England in the UK- about 1 for each 2,500 of the population.

I call that a minority and they are the ones who would make the decision about whether or not the church marries gay couples.

 

That's what I meant when I said "You shouldn't let minority interest groups make decisions about important stuff"

Ah. Fair enough. I thought that you were referring to christians in general. I was thinking about the size of the relative populations ie Christians v Gay.

John, have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

Yes I have. But like those "trusty old sayings" there is always a damned if you do and damned if you don't. You are rightly concerned about the tyranny of the majority but at the same time are complaining about the aims and objectives of a vocal minority. In anything, no matter who wins they will always be either a majority or a minority. "Tyranny of the majority" or "Pandering to special interest minorities"? Which one is worse?

Concerning the rest of your comment. This is why I suggested giving the religious the word "marriage" like they have "Baptism". They can decide who they will or will not marry in their church and so long as it isn't a couple precluded by civil law nobody will say boo. If a particular church wants to marry Gays then they ca, if they don't then they don't have to.

But the reverse is also part of the deal. Society, not the Church gets to say who can have Civil Unions.

For a lot of people in the mainstream religions, it is actually the word that is important, not the act. They want the word "marriage" kept so that it doesn't apply to Gays. As giving the word to the religious will mollify them it pulls most of the support from under the extremists. The vast majority that I'm aware of have no problem with the idea of the Civil Union, they just want the word "marriage" reserved for the Church type weddings. Grant the basics to the mainstream religions, that they get the word "marriage" for their use and that they don't have to marry gays in their church if they don't want to and watch support for the extremists views disappear.

We do this sort of thing all the time. Know any non jews who have had a Bar Mitzvah? The pagan community have "Handfasting" which under Aussie law is not a legal "marriage" if performed by a pagan Priest or Priestess, but is legal if performed by a civil celebrant. This works reasonably well. A pagan who wants to go the whole hog has their wedding officiated by their Priest and a civil celebrant.

As to NAMBLA. I brought them into it to demonstrate that unless you are going to have a free for all with no rules at all, then you will be discriminating against somebody. To my mind it is hypocritical to demand something for one group on the grounds that denying it is "discriminatory" while at the same time denying the demanded thing to another group. Since any rules will automatically be discriminating against somebody, then to me this makes "discrimination" arguments null and void.

Stupid narrow minded controlling people who lie awake at night worrying that some place some one is having a good time... and something must be done about it.

Mate they are everywhere, and not confined to religions. Look at groups like the Sierra Club and the like. The idea that people drive into the pristine wilderness and enjoy the sights drives them to apopolexy. Nature must be left undisturbed, sealed off from man. These people naturally gravitiate to areas where they think they can get control of other peoples actions.