Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Edelrid: "Ultralight Helmet" (Turquoise) Mid blue .Fits 54 - 60cm Great heavy duty all-rounder. SUPER SPECIAL for a short time only!  $79.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 4 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
Author
OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic
simey
25/08/2010
1:06:14 PM
Have people found that the older they have got, the weirder and whackier religion seems?

I'm amazed I didn't question such fairy tale nonsense during all those years I went to church as a youngster.
Duncan
25/08/2010
1:27:26 PM
I think most people are missing the point. Homosexual couples currently don't have the same legal rights as straight couples. So if one partner dies, the other partner doesn't have any legal claim to their stuff. This is the crux of the matter. Labor's position is that they don't support gay "marriage", but do support equal rights for gay couples. I don't think I can express it any more simply than that. Frankly I don't know that it matters whether it's called a marriage or a civil union or whatever, but I do believe that everyone should have the same legal rights.

Eduardo Slabofvic
25/08/2010
1:33:07 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>As in 4 years ago? Yes.

So after 4 years of being your own man, you've decided that you've kissed enough girls and are only going to kiss the same one for the rest of your life? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's kind of sweet, really.

I do have a problem with gay marriage (not implying that you are or are not gay, Sabu). It's not the "gay" part, that's fine, what ever floats your boat. Its the marriage part (and this applies equally to "straights"). Where does the need for a religious/administrative recognition of a private matter between two consenting adults come from?

Is it custom, or history? Then lets bring back human sacrifice. Now there's a quaint old custom that could be very useful to resurrect. I'll start with Simey, then Stugang, then Widewetandwobbly (cause he looked at me funny one day)

Sabu
25/08/2010
1:43:09 PM
On 25/08/2010 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>>As in 4 years ago? Yes.
>
>So after 4 years of being your own man, you've decided that you've kissed
>enough girls and are only going to kiss the same one for the rest of your
>life? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's kind of sweet,
>really.
4 years is only post high school, we're coming up to 6 years together now... early bird gets the worm right?

gordoste
25/08/2010
1:47:32 PM
>simey wrote:
>I have never given much thought to this debate before (probably because I don't value the institution of marriage much). But seeing the issues presented so clearly here, I'm quite shocked that Australian society doesn't allow gay marriages. It seems bizarre that we allow such discrimination in this day and age.

Applause

> Wendy wrote:
> divorce rates and rate of infidelity being as they are, marriage certainly isn't standing up to it's reputation as a way of ensuring love and committment any more so than any other.

Marriage doesn't ensure love and commitment. If that's not there when you get married then it never will be.

> Hendo wrote:
> People here with very liberal views could easily be part of the Taliban had they been born in a few different desert countries.

This is ridiculous given that the Taliban are extreme conservatives! So the anti-gay campaigners would fit right in. You are simply trying to confuse the issue by dragging totally irrelevant "bad guys" into it. Next you'll call whoever disagrees with you a Nazi.

> kieranl wrote:
>Why do otherwise smart, independent women scrap their public identities for the bloke's?

Because some of them realise it doesn't actually make any difference, and are happy to maintain the tradition. Any married man will tell you who is really the boss.

> Sabu wrote:
> according to the bible homosexuality is wrong

According to some interpretations of the Bible. If you read about the history of the Bible you'll realise most of it was written about 300 years after Jesus died by a bunch of church poobahs. I would agree that according to the Pope, homosexuality is wrong.


Regarding the "slippery slope to incestuous marriage" stuff... let me pose a question. If a sterile brother and sister wanted to have a relationship, would you let them? This question exposes the extremely strong nature of taboos. You feel it's wrong, but you cannot explain why. My question to anti-gay-marriage people is, how do you know that the same "gut instinct" isn't operating here? (BTW this question also forces pro-gay-marriage people to consider what they would allow!)
widewetandslippery
25/08/2010
2:31:07 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>On 25/08/2010 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>>On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>>>As in 4 years ago? Yes.
>>
>>So after 4 years of being your own man, you've decided that you've kissed
>>enough girls and are only going to kiss the same one for the rest of
>your
>>life? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's kind of sweet,
>>really.
>4 years is only post high school, we're coming up to 6 years together
>now... early bird gets the worm right?
>

My bitch has worms every now and them. Word of advice Sabu, if your missus has worms don't let her lick her butt and then give you a kiss.
PDRM
25/08/2010
2:39:38 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
> early bird gets the worm right?

...and vice versa

ajfclark
25/08/2010
2:50:40 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>early bird gets the worm right?

Second mouse gets the cheese.


Eduardo Slabofvic
25/08/2010
4:00:09 PM
On 25/08/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>if your missus
>has worms don't let her lick her butt and then give you a kiss.

That is the highest form of wisdom I have ever read on Chockstone.

I'm gonna get that printed on a t-shirt
Duncan
25/08/2010
4:20:34 PM
On 25/08/2010 gordoste wrote:
>> Sabu wrote:
>> according to the bible homosexuality is wrong
>
>According to some interpretations of the Bible. If you read about the
>history of the Bible you'll realise most of it was written about 300 years
>after Jesus died by a bunch of church poobahs. I would agree that according
>to the Pope, homosexuality is wrong.

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the old testament is the one that states homosexuality is wrong. Possibly in the same bit that says that eating pigs is wrong, and wearing cotton/polyester shirts is a sin?

Sabu
25/08/2010
4:41:27 PM
It's most clear in the Old Testiment (along with all those other wierd rules) but it's also mentioned in the New Testiment.

Romans 1:26-27.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
rod
25/08/2010
5:00:48 PM
Sabu - Though Testiment would sum up a lot of people's views that its a load of balls I think you'd prefer to refer to them as Testaments.

Congratulations on setting the date, I hope it goes well for you both.

nmonteith
25/08/2010
6:44:05 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>1 Corinthians 6:9-10

>do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; >neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor >the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

There can't be too many openings in heaven with that set of requirements... especially since half the population gets tanked every weekend.

rodw
Online Now
25/08/2010
8:12:55 PM
Spending eternity with a bunch of people that haven't at least done one on the list....give me the Islam 27 virgins any day..now where did I put that car bomb????
pensionerpower
25/08/2010
8:35:25 PM
On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:

>It's most clear in the Old Testiment (along with all those other wierd rules)

every single one of which you undoubtedly ignore completely - for example:

An uncircumcised boy should be abandoned by his parents and community (G17:14). Those who break the Sabbath should be executed (E31:14). If a man has sex with another man, kill them both (L20:13). Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the whole community (L24:16). Destroy the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions (D7:5). Burn and "utterly detest" the religious symbols of other faiths (D7:25-26). Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own (D17:2-7).

and so on, ad pathetic infinitum.

I've no doubt that the Bible contains some pearls of wisdom. But a lot of it is ridiculous nonsense, exemplified by the quotes above. And you can easily come up with reams and reams and reams of that nonsense:

*** NONE OF WHICH MOST SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
*** ACTUALLY TAKE ANY NOTICE OF!

Apparently it's fine to disapprove of homosexuality "because the bible says so". But for some reason, it's not so fine to murder blasphemers, those who break the Sabbath, missionaries pof other faiths, and so on - and disapprove of dozens and dozens and dozens of other ridiculous unapproved classes of people and activities, all of which the bible calls for?

Sabu, let me in on the secret. Why do you accept the bible's attitude to homosexuals, but not its attitide to blasphemers, missionares, and those who light a fire on Sundays? The bible calls on you to *KILL* those people. It's there in simple black and white.

Do you feel impelled to do so? If not, why not? How do you justify following the parts that you personally seem to agree with, and ignoring the parts that you don't? Doesn't that seem a teeny bit - how can I put this - hypocritical and self-serving?
Duncan
25/08/2010
9:05:57 PM
On 25/08/2010 rodw wrote:
>Spending eternity with a bunch of people that haven't at least done one
>on the list....give me the Islam 27 virgins any day..now where did I put
>that car bomb????

Haha, genius! Because all Muslims are terrorists, right? Hilarious! Man, you showed those lefty PC-warriors, I bet they spit lentils on their Thai fisherman pants after reading that!

No wait - you're just a racist.
simey
25/08/2010
10:25:14 PM
On 25/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>On 25/08/2010 Sabu wrote:
>>1 Corinthians 6:9-10
>
>>do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
>God? Do not be deceived; >neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor >the covetous, nor drunkards,
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Things aren't looking good for me.

rodw
Online Now
25/08/2010
10:28:59 PM
On 25/08/2010 Duncan wrote:
>On 25/08/2010 rodw wrote:
>Haha, genius! Because all Muslims are terrorists, right? Hilarious!
> Man, you showed those lefty PC-warriors, I bet they spit lentils on their
>Thai fisherman pants after reading that!
>
>No wait - you're just a racist.

What about the spelling did I get that right?

Sabu
25/08/2010
10:45:24 PM
On 25/08/2010 pensionerpower wrote:
>every single one of which you undoubtedly ignore completely - for example:
>
> An uncircumcised boy should be abandoned by his parents and community
>(G17:14). Those who break the Sabbath should be executed (E31:14). If a
>man has sex with another man, kill them both (L20:13). Anyone who blasphemes
>or curses shall be stoned to death by the whole community (L24:16). Destroy
>the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions
>(D7:5). Burn and "utterly detest" the religious symbols of other faiths
>(D7:25-26). Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different
>from your own (D17:2-7).
>
>and so on, ad pathetic infinitum.
>
>I've no doubt that the Bible contains some pearls of wisdom. But a lot
>of it is ridiculous nonsense, exemplified by the quotes above. And you
>can easily come up with reams and reams and reams of that nonsense:
>
> *** NONE OF WHICH MOST SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS
> *** ACTUALLY TAKE ANY NOTICE OF!
>
>Apparently it's fine to disapprove of homosexuality "because the bible
>says so". But for some reason, it's not so fine to murder blasphemers,
>those who break the Sabbath, missionaries pof other faiths, and so on -
>and disapprove of dozens and dozens and dozens of other ridiculous unapproved
>classes of people and activities, all of which the bible calls for?
>
>Sabu, let me in on the secret. Why do you accept the bible's attitude
>to homosexuals, but not its attitide to blasphemers, missionares, and those
>who light a fire on Sundays? The bible calls on you to *KILL* those people.
>It's there in simple black and white.
>
>Do you feel impelled to do so? If not, why not? How do you justify following
>the parts that you personally seem to agree with, and ignoring the parts
>that you don't? Doesn't that seem a teeny bit - how can I put this - hypocritical
>and self-serving?

Sigh.
Short answer is because in the New Testament Jesus effectively nullified all those rules and replaced them with 2 simple ones: Love your God and love your neighbor. Killing someone because they farted on the sabbath wouldn't be loving my neighbor now would it?
Another example; If you look through Leviticus it'll talk about which foods are "clean" and therefore fine to eat etc. When Jesus rocked he said its not what goes in that matters (food), its what comes out that does (what you say and do). So by saying that all of those rules and regulations got thrown out the window.

So the most important lesson was to show love to everybody regardless of what they do, but that does not mean one cannot disapprove of what they do. As history as shown this was and still is a very tough ask.

On 25/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>There can't be too many openings in heaven with that set of requirements...
>especially since half the population gets tanked every weekend.

Thats the point really, no one is perfect therefore no one has the right to judge another and why we need God.
kieranl
25/08/2010
10:53:13 PM
One of the more interesting things on the name change issue was an interview with the swimmer Libby Lenton around the time of the Beijing Olympics. She gushed about how she couldn't wait to change her name (when she was to marry shortly after the interview). This seemed really strange to me. I could understand her saying she couldn't wait to be married but being madly excited about adopting your future partners name floored me. It struck me that there was something much deeper about identity going on here. Maybe it's particular to that case or one end of the reaction spectrum to what is essentially a housekeeping decision.
I was saying in another post that if changing the woman's name is done just for tradition then maybe it's one of those traditions that should be allowed to disappear. Up until the mid-sixties it was required that women in many jobs were required to resign when they got married. Do Sabu or others think that this situation should be restored because it's traditional? It might seem like the distant past but those type of "traditions" didn't just slip away, they had to be fiercely opposed.
I'm not putting the name-change issue on quite the same level but it is still a hangover of the "wife as property" era.
Anyone's free to make their personal decisions but I am bemused at the almost ubiquitous nature of the wife name-change among people who marry. Perhaps couple who want to share a surname should toss for who gets to change.

 Page 4 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
There are 235 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints