Jump to content


Photo

Am I A Homophobe?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:36 PM

Today on campus was asked to sign a petition to support g*y Marriage rights. This led to a "discussion" and consequently was told I am a homophobe. The definition given was that any person that denies a g*y person's rights is classified as a homophobe.

Now lets set one thing straight, I am all for equality and equal rights to all people, of colour creed and S@xual orientation.

However the "problem" this petition was for seemed a point of semantics and I do not see it as a legitimate problem in these dark times of war, famine and death, nor do I see any legal rights being infringed...



The "problem" was that g*y people should have the legal right to marry.. However here in Australia they are allowed a civil union which (from what I heard), has all the same legal entitlements as marriage, its just a different name and is conducted through the courts rather than the church. How do I know this, I believe my father has a civil union with my step mother, (so it isn't something restricted to g*y people), since he didn't want to go through the church, (I will double check, but I am 99% sure of this).

So essentially in my view these people were whinging about the name of a piece of paper...... Isn't the love you feel between the person more important? I think its a little pathetic and insecure if they need a piece of paper to say they love someone...

I did ask what legal rights are not being allowed and was responded by " that it feels nicer to say I want to marry you, than to say I want to union you"..... Serious! Is that the problem? That is the "legal" right that is being violated? I believe laws of free speech allow the person to say what ever they want, including "I want to marry you", and then go into a civil union, so essentially this argument is moot, (despite it being semantics in the first place).

The fact that the claim of unfair legal rights was mentioned many times yet this was the only occurrence given leads me to believe that there is a lot of mis-information / propaganda out there that do not give the full story. I have done some research and what I claim is correct, they grant the same rights legally, the ONLY difference is the name and that there is no specific ceremony in a church, (you can have it anywhere you like, my Dad had his in his home).

Another thing I found misleading was that these people were claiming that everyone / most people wants this.... If that was so

1- then why isn't it in place from the beginning?
2- why are you asking me to sign a petition?
3- where is the evidence that everyone / most people do want this, (are those polls accurate statistically with sample size and demographics)





What do you guys think? Is such a fuss over a flipping name necessary when there are much bigger problems out there? Also, am I a homophobe?

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:44 AM

Your question "Am I A Homophobe? " can be easily answered by simply asking yourself "Do I fear H*m*sexuals?"
If your answer is "Yes", then the answer is "Yes"
If yor answer is "No", then th answer is "No"

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:42 AM

That is what I thought, since that is where the word comes from

phobia = fear


No I don't fear h*m*sexuals, I do however think that the campaign being waged is a position of semantics which in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter. I think there are bigger problems in life than the title on a piece of paper. However if they feel that the title of a piece of paper is an important issue they are free to go their hardest :)

#4 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:32 AM

I'm h*m*ph*bic. I was born this way. Why can't people be tolerant and accept me for who I am?

:)
  • de_skudd, AFJ and Bonedigger like this

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:17 AM

I'm h*m*ph*bic. I was born this way. Why can't people be tolerant and accept me for who I am?

:)


Oh... You must mean the Hetrophobes... ;)

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 02:25 PM

I think it is important to note that there is absolutely nothing that being g*y adds to society. h*m*s*xuality and lesbianism has absolutely no positive affect on any society in which you find such activity.

You may attempt to say; “but there are many H*m*sexuals and lesbians that have added greatly to society in the areas of art, science, and humanitarian pursuits (etc…) and I'd agree, BUT this isn’t BECAUSE they were H*m*sexuals or lesbians, rather because they were PEOPLE.

In fact, the act that gives H*m*sexuals and lesbians their title doesn’t even add to society; rather, it stunts society. The S@xual proclivities that drive H*m*sexuals and lesbians, does not, and cannot ever, result in procreation. In fact, in order for the H*m*sexuals and lesbians to procreate, they must act (hypocritically) against that which they call their “nature”. But, biologically, their S@xual proclivities act anathema to biological nature.

Another thing to ponder, is this: I will be called a “bigot” for making the above statements (which begs further questions because the definition for "bigot" relates to race not S@xual prefrence), or I will be labeled “intolerant” for making the above statements (which begs further questions such as "isn't the hetreophobe being "intolerant" of my opinions?). But when one comes to the crux of the matter, all I have done is stated facts….

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 05:38 PM

As an aside... I am not a h*m*ph*bic because I don't fear H*m*sexuals.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:02 PM

Hey Ron,
I'm 50 now and I don't care if people think I'm a bigot. I figure it's their problem, not mine, and they're wrong anyway. I've known some very nice people who were g*y. I don't judge them, or shun them, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on the issue of marriage. Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with any of them, except one, who could at times be perverse. I forthrightly told him about himself.

Obviously, they legally need a petition to start the process of getting their "rights." So they want US to ignore thousands of years of Christian tradition, and hundreds of years of American and European tradition, when it comes to defining marriage. I didn't have a problem with my very quiet neighbor, who always had men staying with him, but never women--because he minded his business, went to work, and was a good neighbor. He didn't get in my business, by imposing his views on me, or asking me if it was alright to adopt children, and pass on his perversity to innocent kids!~!!!!

#9 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:25 AM

The OP shows that the h*mos*xual person ran out of arguments against you and had to resort to name calling. Such a childish tactic.

h*m*sexuals cannot really justify their position except through hedonism and a general sense of "if it doesn't hurt anybody, then let people do it". The big difference is when you try to gain additional rights based on such practices, it becomes your agenda vs my moral conscience. You are now asking for state money to endorse what you are doing, and therefore, my tax dollars. I will not vote to allow that which I deem is immoral. I would vote the same for marriages involving polygamy, incest, b*stiality.

I heard someone try to justify h*m*s*xuality by saying that some animals engage in h*mos*xual activity, therefore it is natural. Well by this logic, so is picking your nose, throwing poop and others, eating poop, eating your own young, incest, ad nauseum etc. I guess I shouldn't be such a bigot against people who do those things.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:52 AM

The OP shows that the h*mos*xual person ran out of arguments against you and had to resort to name calling. Such a childish tactic.

h*m*sexuals cannot really justify their position except through hedonism and a general sense of "if it doesn't hurt anybody, then let people do it". The big difference is when you try to gain additional rights based on such practices, it becomes your agenda vs my moral conscience. You are now asking for state money to endorse what you are doing, and therefore, my tax dollars. I will not vote to allow that which I deem is immoral. I would vote the same for marriages involving polygamy, incest, b*stiality.

I heard someone try to justify h*m*s*xuality by saying that some animals engage in h*mos*xual activity, therefore it is natural. Well by this logic, so is picking your nose, throwing poop and others, eating poop, eating your own young, incest, ad nauseum etc. I guess I shouldn't be such a bigot against people who do those things.


I've heard that argument before, and you're right. Just because animals do something doesn't justify it with us... We are more than animals, well an evolutionist may disagree which is probably where this argument stems from.

Yet despite this according to naturalist / evolutionist worldview h*m*s*xuality would be un-natural since according to them the natural purpose of life is to procreate, since same s@x couples cannot procreate then there is no natural purpose. The same is said for "evolutionary fitness" since that is determined by the amount of offspring / genes a couple can introduce to the next generation, hence according to evolutionist ideals h*m*sexuals have no " evolutionary fitness".

Yet ironically many h*m*sexuals would take up the mantle of atheism / evolution, (not knowing the technicalities of this worldview and how it defies their own nature)




EDIT:

I've read another thread, (I think a political one) and it seems that many states in America don't even have civil unions... Hence the fact that civil unions are allowed here in Australia reinforces the claim that all this banter in the OP via the people I met was simply whinging. I could understand if civil unions and / or any other recourse for something similar, were not allowed but the fact they are in Australia means that there really was / is no issue.

I guess its now just frustratingly obvious how wrong the people are.

#11 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 May 2012 - 05:25 PM

Whinging is such a strange word to me. I had to look it up to make sure you weren't just spelling whining wrong. lol. Never heard it before.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 May 2012 - 10:26 PM

Whinging is such a strange word to me. I had to look it up to make sure you weren't just spelling whining wrong. lol. Never heard it before.


Lol its the Australian version of whining ;)

I rarely use whining

#13 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:09 AM

Lol its the Australian version of whining ;)

I rarely use whining


Strewth gilbo, ya can't use that lingo roung here :cry:
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:15 AM

Lol thats the classic Aussie slang / "language", unfortunately its rarely used especially with the younger generation. Its more contemporary, (and generally with more swearing since that is what is "cool" now..... dear me I sound like I'm an old man or something lol)


An old one I heard was

"I'm so hungry I could eat the arse-end of a low flying maggie" (Maggie = Magpie = a type of bird)

#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2012 - 03:07 PM

Today on campus was asked to sign a petition to support g*y Marriage rights. This led to a "discussion" and consequently was told I am a homophobe. The definition given was that any person that denies a g*y person's rights is classified as a homophobe. Now lets set one thing straight, I am all for equality and equal rights to all people, of colour creed and S@xual orientation. However the "problem" this petition was for seemed a point of semantics and I do not see it as a legitimate problem in these dark times of war, famine and death, nor do I see any legal rights being infringed... The "problem" was that g*y people should have the legal right to marry.. However here in Australia they are allowed a civil union which (from what I heard), has all the same legal entitlements as marriage, its just a different name and is conducted through the courts rather than the church. How do I know this, I believe my father has a civil union with my step mother, (so it isn't something restricted to g*y people), since he didn't want to go through the church, (I will double check, but I am 99% sure of this). So essentially in my view these people were whinging about the name of a piece of paper...... Isn't the love you feel between the person more important? I think its a little pathetic and insecure if they need a piece of paper to say they love someone... I did ask what legal rights are not being allowed and was responded by " that it feels nicer to say I want to marry you, than to say I want to union you"..... Serious! Is that the problem? That is the "legal" right that is being violated? I believe laws of free speech allow the person to say what ever they want, including "I want to marry you", and then go into a civil union, so essentially this argument is moot, (despite it being semantics in the first place). The fact that the claim of unfair legal rights was mentioned many times yet this was the only occurrence given leads me to believe that there is a lot of mis-information / propaganda out there that do not give the full story. I have done some research and what I claim is correct, they grant the same rights legally, the ONLY difference is the name and that there is no specific ceremony in a church, (you can have it anywhere you like, my Dad had his in his home). Another thing I found misleading was that these people were claiming that everyone / most people wants this.... If that was so 1- then why isn't it in place from the beginning? 2- why are you asking me to sign a petition? 3- where is the evidence that everyone / most people do want this, (are those polls accurate statistically with sample size and demographics) What do you guys think? Is such a fuss over a flipping name necessary when there are much bigger problems out there? Also, am I a homophobe?

.

I don't know about the Australian Government but, America has both a "Declaration" of Independence and a Constitution. Our declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. The United States is not a pure democracy but, a Deomocratic Republic. In a pure democracy if someone didn't like you, you could be voted out and exculded form society (the country) by majority rule.

To avoid that America's founding fathers wrote our constitution along with the bill of rights making the USA a Democratic Republic.. Techincally, it is "unconstitutional' to put any American citizen's rights to a vote--marrigae or otherwise. Yet, in many states it is "illegal" to be g*y. That means that any h*mos*xual act Is a felony punishible by life in prison or the death penalty. This rarely if ever is enforced to the letter. However lesser fines and punishments are often utlized. Most Americans do not realise what the term felony actually means.

.There are laws on the books in many states that are used to persecute G*ys and those that commit "gross indecencies." Technically oral s@x between a man and a woman is considered a gross indecency but, the law is applied unevenly to some "'offenders" more than others. Our country is not suppose to have an official s@x act.

I was a counselor in my church and sat across from several g*y guys that I felt God was working with. I told them to fast, exercise and pray!.. At the end of many therapy sessions they were still g*y. My conclusion was that if h*m*s*xuality is a problem it is one that God will have to solve.

I have to admit that in one sense it's hard to believe that "natural" selection would select for someone to be g*y. Yet, allegedly 10% of the worlds population is g*y--all born to hetros. . Judging from the fact that many of my clients wanted to kill themselves, I think they were sincere in not believing they chose to be g*y. The suicide rate among g*y teens is five times that of straight teens. I came to the conclusion that being g*y was not a simple choice.

Choice means you have at leat two alternatives to choose from. That means that hetros would have to have chosen being straight after considering being g*y. All the people I talked to don't remember making a choice to be one way or the other (ask your self if being g*y was a choice for you?)..

I agree with Ron. If you are afraid of G*ys you are a homophobe! Other than that it's probably not a good idea to put basic human rights to a vote. Equality is a two edged sword. .There are many countries that actively persecute Christians.

Since Christ is an excellent Savior, I am sure He will find some way to save most of us humans. He said He kept all those that the Father gave Him except for the one they planned to lose. And then, let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

All the best!

#16 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 July 2012 - 03:34 PM

If the definition of homophobe being not supporting g*y marriage, then you shouldn't have a problem with it because the common stigma attached to the word does not logically precede from the definition. e.g. not supporting it doesn't make you afraid of them. Of course that's not exactly the definition so this is just generic namecalling and should be taken as such.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:05 PM

.

I don't know about the Australian Government but, America has both a "Declaration" of Independence and a Constitution. Our declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. The United States is not a pure democracy but, a Deomocratic Republic. In a pure democracy if someone didn't like you, you could be voted out and exculded form society (the country) by majority rule.

To avoid that America's founding fathers wrote our constitution along with the bill of rights making the USA a Democratic Republic.. Techincally, it is "unconstitutional' to put any American citizen's rights to a vote--marrigae or otherwise. Yet, in many states it is "illegal" to be g*y. That means that any h*mos*xual act Is a felony punishible by life in prison or the death penalty. This rarely if ever is enforced to the letter. However lesser fines and punishments are often utlized. Most Americans do not realise what the term felony actually means.

.There are laws on the books in many states that are used to persecute G*ys and those that commit "gross indecencies." Technically oral s@x between a man and a woman is considered a gross indecency but, the law is applied unevenly to some "'offenders" more than others. Our country is not suppose to have an official s@x act.

I was a counselor in my church and sat across from several g*y guys that I felt God was working with. I told them to fast, exercise and pray!.. At the end of many therapy sessions they were still g*y. My conclusion was that if h*m*s*xuality is a problem it is one that God will have to solve.

I have to admit that in one sense it's hard to believe that "natural" selection would select for someone to be g*y. Yet, allegedly 10% of the worlds population is g*y--all born to hetros. . Judging from the fact that many of my clients wanted to kill themselves, I think they were sincere in not believing they chose to be g*y. The suicide rate among g*y teens is five times that of straight teens. I came to the conclusion that being g*y was not a simple choice.

Choice means you have at leat two alternatives to choose from. That means that hetros would have to have chosen being straight after considering being g*y. All the people I talked to don't remember making a choice to be one way or the other (ask your self if being g*y was a choice for you?)..

I agree with Ron. If you are afraid of G*ys you are a homophobe! Other than that it's probably not a good idea to put basic human rights to a vote. Equality is a two edged sword. .There are many countries that actively persecute Christians.

Since Christ is an excellent Savior, I am sure He will find some way to save most of us humans. He said He kept all those that the Father gave Him except for the one they planned to lose. And then, let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

All the best!


Nope not afraid, just annoyed lol

Yes I'm not claiming being g*y is a choice or not. Whether it is or not doesn't really have any effect on what I am talking about.

Also not sure on the specific laws however I don't think being g*y is a felony here. Civil unions are allowed to anyone, it passes all the same legal rights as marriage however doesn't require a church or a pastor and is done via a representative from the courts. Therefore the claims being made that G*ys have less legal rights is a blatant lie, perhaps its true in the US however what happens in another country shouldn't affect us here in Australia :)
  • Mike Summers likes this

#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

I am sure that there is a difference between our two countries. The pont you make about civil unions having the same benefits (rights of surivival, tax advantage, etc) are not so in America.

As an interesting aside, I have known of Christian Americans that were married in church and did not involve the government. I think their marriage are valid (because of my respect for God and them). Since when does what God does need human validation?

Jesus said to forgive when we are asked to do so. If we were to do a wrong that conflicts the "law'" of a human government, asking for forgiveness would not most likely keep us from punishment ( even if we fully intended to not infract again). God may forgive us, the neighbors I am not so sure of.Posted Image

G*ys with all honesty may have a point even in Australia, if we are "perfectly" honest. For example it is considered "gross indecency" ( a felony in America) to have oral s@x (married or otherwise). G*ys, however have those laws more frequently applied to them (discrimination) than hetros. I personally don't think anyone in their right mind would choose to be g*y.

The same would be true of being black in America--even though we had the civil rights movement. So called blacks (not a scientific concept) are poorly represented in the finacial pyramid. The same may be true of Australia's Aboriginies I would surmise.

Annoyed? What for? Does it serve any purpose? Where I am coming from is this; why punish yourself for something someoe else does "wrong?" I used to do that myself.

#19 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:59 PM

...However the "problem" this petition was for seemed a point of semantics and I do not see it as a legitimate problem in these dark times of war, famine and death, nor do I see any legal rights being infringed......
..


That's exactly what it is. They are playing with words (loading the language) to use them to manipulate people in thinking or doing something (attitude change). It's the same with words like "racism", "chauvinism", "Capitalism", etc. They don't have a clear meaning, in fact you can shift the definitions pretty easily to give it different meanings, but they do have some emotional load attached to it. Load that was constructed with repetitive negative connotations (i.e. violence, victimization, suffering) to give the words some moral negativity.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:57 PM

I am sure that there is a difference between our two countries. The pont you make about civil unions having the same benefits (rights of surivival, tax advantage, etc) are not so in America.

As an interesting aside, I have known of Christian Americans that were married in church and did not involve the government. I think their marriage are valid (because of my respect for God and them). Since when does what God does need human validation?

Jesus said to forgive when we are asked to do so. If we were to do a wrong that conflicts the "law'" of a human government, asking for forgiveness would not most likely keep us from punishment ( even if we fully intended to not infract again). God may forgive us, the neighbors I am not so sure of.Posted Image

G*ys with all honesty may have a point even in Australia, if we are "perfectly" honest. For example it is considered "gross indecency" ( a felony in America) to have oral s@x (married or otherwise). G*ys, however have those laws more frequently applied to them (discrimination) than hetros. I personally don't think anyone in their right mind would choose to be g*y.

The same would be true of being black in America--even though we had the civil rights movement. So called blacks (not a scientific concept) are poorly represented in the finacial pyramid. The same may be true of Australia's Aboriginies I would surmise.

Annoyed? What for? Does it serve any purpose? Where I am coming from is this; why punish yourself for something someoe else does "wrong?" I used to do that myself.


I'm not saying they choose it, however complaining about "legal injustice" when it is not happening are lies, they are not helping their case when they do such, since the truth comes out over time so lying about things will not help them.

Yes I'd admit there are general prejudices however that is not what they were talking about, the same can be said for a Greek shop owner who employs mainly Greek people. Prejudice in people is merely a part of our imperfect world complaining about such is not going to help anything.

Additionally the mere fact that these people were doing this means they were prejudiced towards their own worldview, in essence no-one can be unbiased, fair etc


Thereare issues here in Australia about Australian Aboriginees.


There is a negative view from the general concensus however I believe many bring it onto themselves. This isn't to say that they are all bad however it seems they in the majority of disconduct in areas. Whilst some may say that its a lifestyle change etc, yes it is however I prefer to look at the work of Ghandi who with the rest of the Indian people fixed their own problems themselves.

Part of the problem is the free money given to them, which means that none have a need to get a job, unfortunately this means many will not get a job, (this seems to be commonplace these days since all unemployed get assistance here in Australia...), therefore there is little for them to do, many get drunk etc and it progresses from there.

Additionally is that the legal system generally allows them to do such. My ex-girlfriends house was broken into when she was little, her father chased the man down the street. The police knew who it was but said they could do nothing since he would merely claim "racism" and the judge would throw the case out of the courts.

A similar thing occured with an classmate of asian background who attempted to drive away from the cops (he was drink driving) and when he was caught (he rolled his car) he exclaimed that the police were being racist and was let off.... Though the crediability of this story is low, the fact that it was said does give some credence to the proposition.


What is ironic in this respect is that the shoe doesn't go on the otherfoot. Because "whities" (etc) are the majority there can be no racist comments about them....

However I know that I am not the be-all-end-all of knowledge hence if you wish to learn more, (and perhaps the real truth lol) I suggest doing some research into it, that is assuming you wanted to lol.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users