Everyones favorite topic.

[lurker]

I received an invitation in the mail yesterday to the inaugural vic agm of this mob.

One thing that caught my eye on the flyer was they want to legalise drug use.

they have a web site so i visited it.

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies.jsp

unfortunately they want to do other things i don't agree with.(and i'm borderline anarchist anyway)

just thought someone may be interested enough to spit some venom about this particular area of our society.

[MrBumpy]

I'm all for the legalisation of marijuana.....a few of there other policies, to me anyway...seemed a bit hair-brained.

-bumpy

[Gwydion]

As a normally quiet, timid and passive person, I must still suggest the immediate cessation of the lives of these individuals (despite their few good ideas, they are F%$*&d!).

[first impressions only]

"End public funding for political parties"????????????????????

What, so now they can be nothing more than a mega-corporate subcommittee????

Shoot them! And shoot them now! Before they breed!

Patria o muerte!

[all of the above is meant in the nicest possible manner, of course]

[lurker]

Originally posted by Gwydion:

"End public funding for political parties"????????????????????

What, so now they can be nothing more than a mega-corporate subcommittee????

my thoughts as well.

Shoot them! And shoot them now! Before they breed!

your probably right.

who's patracia o'meura?

[Auxin]

One of their proposed policies is "Equal rights for gays and lesbians" How far away from this is Australia? My country got it to about 70% equality for gays & lesbians and we seem to have gotten stuck their. Virtually no marriage alowed, little adoption alowed, unfair taxes, and homosexual sex is illegal in about 30% of the states! Those are the main problems that remain in the USA. How about you?

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Auxin:

My country got it to about 70% equality for gays & lesbians

70%, you're kidding right?? Even if all the laws were equal, the real equality would still only be about 50%. Look at women today. The laws say that they have to be treated equal, but anyone who thinks that they are being treated equal is deluding themselves (and/or is male). In australia recently a survey showed that 80% of all women are harrassed in the workplace on th basis of their gender. Only about 10% report it. This is not equality.... it is sticking our heads in the sand.

AS for gay equality, we have a long way to go. I think our society has become increasingly tolerant and after travelling europe I was astounded as to just how accepted gays are in australia. Funny thing is that many european countries have much better laws for gays, but the acceptance hasn't filtered through to the population yet.

The last australian state to prohibit gay sex was tasmania and they learnt their lesson quickly. The federal government punished them, the tourist industry annihilated them, and the gay community boycotted them. It was overturned a couple of years later after a huge amount of damage to the tasmanian economy.

No other state has restrictions.

Gay celebrant marriages are allowed in South Australia, but they have little legal standing. Other than that there hsn't been a lot of development in the last few years due to a very conservative right wing federal government and very conservative left wing state governments in the major states.

I don't think much will happen in the next few years. The federal government isn't going to do anything and neither are the state governments. These things usually develop from one of the smaller states making a stand. Adoption law reform will probably be next (I think there have been some advances in NSW lately). But what I think is much more important is the legal appreciation of same-sex partnerships, ie, Superannuation laws, inheritance laws and social security/medical insurance. This would be such a great gesture that wouldn't cost the government much, but it seems sooooo far away.

To sum it up...... I don't think we can talk about equality yet. The day I can rely on that my partner is covered by my insurance and that he is legally entitled to make decisions about my life same as a spouse would be, then we can think about equality.

This is currently pissing me off to the max. To make sure that Daniel inherits the business he has helped to build (rather than it going to my mum who doesn't approve of him) I have to make a will. And every time I change something I have to make a new will. Nothing becomes his automatically. This is just so unfair and frustrating.

[Darklight]

Originally posted by Torsten:

The laws say that they have to be treated equal, but anyone who thinks that they are being treated equal is deluding themselves (and/or is male). In australia recently a survey showed that 80% of all women are harrassed in the workplace on th basis of their gender. Only about 10% report it. This is not equality.... it is sticking our heads in the sand.

This is going to be one of those topics, I can tell

IMO there are pockets of extreme privilege when it comes to the notion of equality between genders. I socialise and have worked with many men who have definitely been on the wrong end of gender discrimination and occasional sexual harassment themselves, and who don't even know how to begin to formulate a complaint on the gounds they know they'll not be taken seriously. It's ironic that, as a dyke, I spend time sitting round with my bloke mates saying " She WHAT? But that's crap. You don't have to put up with that, I spose there's nothing you can do is there? ". But if I'd put up with the same treatment I'd be asking the same questions.

In many cases they are even reluctant to voice their concerns on these issues to anyone as in some places there is such a paradigm of " She can't be wrong, she's a woman and we have 50 000 years of opperession to make up for " that the notion that men could be treated unfairly is beyond consideration

Ditto the sexual harassment thing. Another example is a close friend gets hassled by women so often he sometimes finds it difficult to go out, and when he does he *accepts* that he'll probably be hassled. Having been on the town with him a number of times and seen just how much unwanted attention he cops ( never a night goes by without it ) - I never would have believed it otherwise- and he's just resigned to it. Kinda reminds me of the way women talked about the same thing 20 years ago- get used to it, it happens and it'll stop when you're ugly. No point in complaining, he'll get laughed at. He's more an extreme example, but it's something I've seen happen with enough frequency.

Likewise there are pockets of extreme deprivation. I think no matter the legislation, there are those who will be unable to benefit from it. I have also socialised and worked with a number of women who, no matter how you explain things or offer opportunities, seem unable for whatever reason, to come to terms with the notion that they are as inherently capable and deserving of opportunity as any bloke. Domestic violence, lack of opportunity, inertia and that hideous acceptance that such phenomena are part and parcel of their future as well as past seem to permeate their thoughts and actions. The notion of acceptable choices for them seems to be hampered by some inner dialogue where, yes, they are guided and governed by the mere fact of their gender. But how many government programs, what sort of social changes are required, and to what extent could such things accelerate the pockets of overprivilege before thes women are able to make use of the potential of their life?

This is not to say that such work isn't to be done: to the contrary I believe this is what defines the more important question.

Is legislation the answer, or even a guiding light in the pace of social change? Is it not the spirit with which is bought to being and kept alive more important than the actual wording? To what extent does the adversarial system of resolution allow/ encourage some individuals to take advantage of their own victimhood? You can phrase and Act however you will, there's always someone who can get around it. And you can't legislate against stupidity or willful ignorance unfortunately, or John Laws would be in the Big House rather than a mansion.

I think as long as the notion of equality is shrouded in the redressing of past wrongs and the presumption of future ones, rather than a genuine exploration of the issues of balance, of social and personal responsibility, then these pockets of extreme privilege and deprivation will continue to escalate in size and deprive people of the chance to interact with each other on a more genuine level.

Having said that then overall women earn less than men, have fewer professional opportunities overall, and there are still places where you won't get to ( some boardrooms and club lounges ) on the grounds that you have a double X chromosone. And few ppl today will admit in seriousness that this is a good thing. Has anyone considered that it wasn't like we were all sitting round gnashing our teeth in the meantime- that there may exist similar structures or progressions open to women which may have been socially unsanctioned for men? ( No I don't mean breastfeeding ) It's generally accepted that the currently defined social structures have left too many men unable to deal with complex emotional processes and without the strong social support networks which most women enjoy. Whether or not this is true, of course, is a matter of personal expeience IMO. And not all women want to go into boardrooms or the Melbourne Club, and more than a few blokes I know wish they had more time to spend with theiur kids- these opportunities should be available to all, regardless of gender.

I don't have answers, but there are a few questions I'd like to see better defined somehow I feel in the current social climate, the real issues behind the debate are being ignored.

Having said that I think Bettina Arndt is a loser. And no, I'm not a male apologist or some kind of turncoat feminist ( accusations levelled at me by my dyke colleagues at various stages ). I might be a bit feudal or something, but I definitely have a vested interest in making sure all my friends and family receive the best possible treatment in all areas, including equality.

No other state has restrictions.

The only restriction I can think of is the age of consent issue. For girls it is 16 ( regardless of sexual preference I think ) and for straight boys it is 16 too. But for young gay men it's 18. This is both discriminatory and used as a criminal trap in many areas. Charges of paedophilia can and have been laid against prominent men without it ever being made publicly clear as to whether this was as a result of the anomalous age of consent laws or whether they really were seedy rock spiders. The abolition of this law, in addition to proffering equality to all, rather than implying that poofs are a touch stupid and grow up a bit later than the rest of us, might just deprive a few malicious ppl of a malign force of social control.

Gay celebrant marriages are allowed in South Australia, but they have little legal standing.

But there are an increasing number of them nationwide, I hear of two or three in my area a year, and I don't get out much I wonder if the weight of numbers will in itself spur further change?

I don't think much will happen in the next few years.

I think you're wrong The recent re-emphasis on the political debate from the Mardi Gras committee will I think further extend. MG went from being a grassroots organisation proposing social change to a frivolous money spinner for frock designers. The five or more years up to 2002 saw the parade as pretty much a bunch of ppl waggling their arses in the faces of a delighted and largely heterosexual public on the alleged basis of social change: the real issues were ignored and they remained that way.

Where the MG committee goes, the publicity invariably follows and with it the bulk of opinion FWIW. The legacy of all that previous hedonism has admittedly been the capturing of the public's imagination and sympathy to a large extent, and i believe the focussing of the festival and parade's emphasis back to real issues will be reflected by changes within the community.

But they're tricky fiddly changes and they don't make good press releases for your local MP. It's easy to breeze out to a press conference and announce that everyone is equal and the whingers can go home now: to an extent that sort of 3 second sound byte will generate enough warm fuzzies within the electorate without making them think hard enough to examine their prejudices. but having your local redneck MP tough out the necessary wrangling to get equality for, say, superannuation ( which hits a lot of big businesses where they live ) for same sex relationships- well, that might just be asking a bit much. Doesn't hurt to ask though

To sum it up...... I don't think we can talk about equality yet

I have equality, anyone who wants to take it from me is up for a fight

Mind you I live in a small town, which is a curse for many gay ppl but in mine it has been a blessing. For example, my former partner was involved in a car accident and went to hospital: there had to be some juggling with the kids and cars etc. I knew the matron at the local hospital, I got a cuppa tea and waved through the door no questions asked as it was accepted that we were partners and I should as a matter of course be allowed to be there, take the kids to be picked up etc. It could have been more serious than it was, and in many places had my ex- been in casualty I would have had all hell's time explaining who I was, being able to see her, take the kids to be picked up etc. And in many places it wouldn't have been possible to explain at all.

It's the little stuff like that which bogs you down re. equality. People who don't understand can wave their hands airily and proclaim of course we're all equal now, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts details gays, lesbians and especially transgender people are not covered by the law in the same way that straight ppl are and we are often defined only in absentia.

The day I can rely on that my partner is covered by my insurance and that he is legally entitled to make decisions about my life same as a spouse would be, then we can think about equality.

Exactly.

During the late 80's I was horrified by the number of ppl who had died of HIV related causes, whose families had claimed them after years of acrimony or downright expulsion. The grieving partner would be refused all rights to decisions surrounding the burial, the assets ( having the flat and/ or furniture confiscated a few days after your long term lover dies by their unfeeling family would be catastrophic ) the superannuation/ insurance and probably any kids. Because they had no legal standing on these issues cos they were in a homosexual defacto relationship. The law a shit of an excuse to use to treat someone who has worked so hard, who is so vulnerable, whose only 'offence' is to have loved and supported someone.

I believe this issue has been recognised to a certain extent, but is definitely not legally rectified. And this is what it comes down to, for me. You can say we're as equal as you like, but when this sort of behaviour is still legally possibly, we're a long way off yet

Nothing becomes his automatically. This is just so unfair and frustrating.

And just plain wrong.

Sorry for the rant ppls, but I think that the issues here are more complex than the notion of equality. And I keep seeming to end up on the wrong side of [i}something[/i] as a result of it all so often I've seen a goodly number of perspectives I think. Frankly i'm more confused than ever

[Adrian]

Dodgy politics!

I don't think they'll ever tax the air we breathe.

But there's a good chance that in future will have to either produce our own or purchase it from pharmasutical companies, along with our solar radiation suits.

sort of off the topic,

Whats with the first line of our national anthem, who is 'us' and what are they rejoicing about.

Sounds like a colony joke.

[MrBumpy]

is oral sex still illegal in Tasmania?

-bumpy

[Guest antigravitas]

pretty much everyone gets harrassed in the workplace. that's just the way human beings are. and not just the workplace: be a little bit different to the herd in just about any human environment and you will pay some kind of price.

my starting point has always been that human rights are indivisible. the minute you start carving that up into gay rights, or women's rights, or short people's rights or whatever... you take off down a track that definitionally creates inequalities; no matter how attractive the short terms gains might seem. (perhaps i should have said 'vertically diminished aspect gains')

as for legalisation of recreational drugs, here's my 2 cents worth:

the problem with making recreational drugs illegal is it makes criminals of people who use them. this can attract financial and penal impositions. not good things. it also creates a black market which limits supply and distribution, thereby artificially inflating prices and exposing otherwise ordinary people to criminal 'elements'. the obvious temptation is to say that where a particular recreational drug is no more harmful than (say) alcohol, then making it legal would remove those negative aspects.

this is naive. all legal products are nonetheless regulated and are usually taxed. in the case of legal recreational drugs the taxation is usually excessive. thus legalising, for example, cannabis will only impact upon the criminality aspect and will not likely increase supply or reduce prices. i would suggest quite the opposite. i have no doubt whatever that were cannabis to become a legal product, the commercial imperative of licensed growers would lead to massive prohibition of home grown and sold product. one need only look at the severe laws that have held for hops (a relative of cannabis) to realise the sort of shape these regulations might take.

i believe the solution is decriminalisation rather than legalisation. i don't want big business or the government involved in any way with ganja. make growing a handful of plants for personal use legal and prohibit commercial sale. by extension the same principle should apply to all organic recreational drugs.

this way the consumer is a clear winner and the current downsides of recreational drug use are not traded for another set of downsides: possibly more vexing than the ones we have now.

[Guest antigravitas]

and just a quick word on gay marriages etc. in south oz de facto marriages have the same legal status as any other marriages (that is what de facto means), and this includes gay marriages. federally, centrelink refers to spouses now as 'partners', as in the partner allowance for low income earners. this change of term from 'spouse' is legally significant. as with all things related to centrelink, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the claimant to establish the relationship. under federal legislation i would be suprised if being same sex would be an administrative ground for refusing benefits.

as for insurance etc, this is only of relevance where someone dies intestate. all insurance policies ask for a beneficiary and/or next of kin, and it is beholden on the holder of that policy to make sure these matters are clear at the time the policy is taken. being gay is irrelevant. many people leave their estates to their pets for chrissakes. ditto with next of kin with regard to hospital treatment etc. admission forms always ask for this information. a patient can nominate ANYONE as their next of kin and it is then beholden upon contesting relatives to dispute this. i wouldn't fancy their chances tho.

as for the anti gay laws in tasmania a decade or so ago: firstly they were never implemented. secondly i believe they were repealed. thirdly, they would have inevitably have been declared unconstitutional if taken to the high court both on the basis of federal anti discrimination legislation and the 'implied rights' the current high court have seen (properly) fit to accord as as per the mabo decision.

ok, it wasn't a quick word. but it could have been a lot longer.

[Guest antigravitas]

torsten,

few things invalidate a properly written will. the most common thing that does is marriage, which voids all previous wills. divorce, ironically, does not.

most states have a public trustee who will prepare a will for free. because they are specialists in this area it is (unusually) an example of where you can probably do better than paying for a lawyer yourself..unless your will is unusually complex or has substantially commercial aspects. unless you are a member of the packer family i wouldn't be too concerned about that. the public trustee btw charges on average substantially less to execute the will than is the norm with private executors.

if you REALLY want there to be no doubt about the disposition of your estate, you should establish a trust. it is usually a good idea to do this for taxation reasons if you run a business anyway. this will cost you a few hundred dollars. i woud strongly urge you to look into it.

ok. i will shut up now.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by antigravitas:

thus legalising, for example, cannabis will only impact upon the criminality aspect and will not likely increase supply or reduce prices. i would suggest quite the opposite.

there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Decrimininalisation in Holland is virtually identical to legalisation (you can get a license to operate a pot selling coffee shop, so it must be legal). The price there hasn't dropped much in the tourist areas, but as soon as you head a few k's out of a'dam the stuff is as cheap as herbal tea and the quality improves exponentially. Sure, there will be taxes, but so what. The government needs to get their moey from somewhere, so why not from luxury items. (and no, I have no desire for a discussion on taxation).

i have no doubt whatever that were cannabis to become a legal product, the commercial imperative of licensed growers would lead to massive prohibition of home grown and sold product.

well, it hasn't in those places where it has been decriminalised. SA is a good example close to home. European countries are a better guide though.

I think as far as economics are concerned, ther eis no real difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. The decriminalisation in holland is a good example of such as it is no different than legalisation.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by antigravitas:

in south oz de facto marriages have the same legal status as any other marriages

you are not well informed on this issue. The touted equality is a tokenism and has little real application. For example, you can't put your gay partner in a 'couples' health insurance. The gay partner is NOT regarded as the next of kin in case of emergencies/death. The gay partner is not the heir. A gay partner is NOT regarded as a partner under immigration law. These are the everyday practical applications of equality and they are just not there. I would welcome any examples of just how a gay couple is regarded as a couple in SA that has any real life relevance - please.

federally, centrelink refers to spouses now as 'partners', as in the partner allowance for low income earners. this change of term from 'spouse' is legally significant.

it is completely insignificant in the application to partnerships. A gay partner is not viewed as a partner by ANY federal institution, and especially not centrelink.

Wake up, this is real life!

under federal legislation i would be suprised if being same sex would be an administrative ground for refusing benefits.

be surprised.

as for insurance etc, this is only of relevance where someone dies intestate. all insurance policies ask for a beneficiary and/or next of kin, and it is beholden on the holder of that policy to make sure these matters are clear at the time the policy is taken. being gay is irrelevant.

wrong again. On my policy I can only give one bneficiary. obviously for home contents insurance this would be me. However, if I die in the housefire, then if I am married, my wife would get it all automatically. If I am gay, then my partner is evicted and it all goes to my next of kin (until distribution by testament).

Furthermore, if I go into a coma, then my next of kin gets to make the decisions (which in many cases could include the decision to ban the partner from the hospital ward). I would need to furnish a power of attourney form before going into a coma to prevent this.

Now, while I agree, that these obstacles can all be overcome, the point here was that we were talking about equality and that the whole issue is that gay partners should not NEED to take these precations simply to achieve what is commonplace for straight relationships!!!! This is the whole definition of equality!

many people leave their estates to their pets for chrissakes.

we were not talking about what people CAN do, but what the normal flow of things would be if there was real equality.

ditto with next of kin with regard to hospital treatment etc. admission forms always ask for this information.

yep, many coma patients sign their name in their sleep...

we were talking about extreme situations, where gay couple are NOT equal under the law.

a patient can nominate ANYONE

again, the point is that this does not reflect equality.

as for the anti gay laws in tasmania a decade or so ago: firstly they were never implemented.

whaaaaaaaaat??? they were law for a good year or so.

secondly i believe they were repealed.

I don't remember the details, but they were repealed only after a change of government or something drastic like that.

thirdly, they would have inevitably have been declared unconstitutional if taken to the high court both on the basis of federal anti discrimination legislation

yes, so what?? Just because laws are repealed, that doesn't make the society/system that allowed them in the first place any better. These legal processes sometimes take decades. Where is the equality in that??

Simply repealing aboriginal integration policy or mandatory sentencing doesn't wipe away the inequality, the shame and the feeling that it could happen again -- any day. The simple fact that such a law as the gay discrimination laws in tasmania can pass in a state of australia shows just how far from equality we really are.

I presume you are not gay and have never had to deal with any of these issues. You probably also don't have any gay friends that have been in such horrid situations. obviously, cos otherwise you could not make statements that lack any insight into the issues gays have to deal with on a regular basis. if there is no problem, then why does it become a problem for so many gays??

[Guest antigravitas]

torsten....so many hedgehogs...so little time. *s*

your points in turn:

'For example, you can't put your gay partner in a 'couples' health insurance.'

this is something of a confusant. insurance is a private contractual arrangement, and in the case of insurance, is predicated on actuarial assesment of risk. the assumption would be that gay couples have a significantly higher risk assesment than married hetero couples. since insurance is costed on risk and operates in a commercial environment it is a bit of a stretch to enclose private financial transactions under an undiscriminating political 'freedom'. if you don't think so then perhaps you might consider the effect that having unscreened stuntmen or formula one drivers under identical cover to yourself would have on YOUR policy. just as you might object to the higher premium that would follow, and the lack of fairness that would mean; so too would low risk policy holders object to higher risk holders being treated as tho no such risk existed. and the difference between the cost of couples insurance and 2 singles is minor. i suspect only as large as to accomodate the altered acturial risk. this is not discrimination on the basis of gender preference: it is discrimination on the basis of risk to the fund. insurance companies don't care if you are gay for its own sake. get real.

'it is completely insignificant in the application to partnerships. A gay partner is not viewed as a partner by ANY federal institution, and especially not centrelink.'

the shift to full acceptance of gay marriages federally relates (primarily) to issues of taxation. simply, an open and unqualified acceptance of any claim to a gay marriage would lead to inevitable abuses of deductability and income splitting. this is not a small problem. if i were making a million a year it would be possible for me to arrange with, say, an employee or a housemate, to declare themselves as my partner and effectively reduce my tax burden by 100s of 1000s of dollars per year. again this is not a gender preference issue. the same difficulties apply to any common law marriages at a federal level. having said that, at least hetero couples have available a formal mechanism of marriage to legally confirm their relationship. the law is in flux here. but that is how law develops in common law countries. it is not simply a question of passing statutes: a body of judicial determininations needs to develop before the situation becomes unequivocal.

and you are wrong about centrelink. (i qualify this statement in the complete knowledge that centrelink decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent)

'On my policy I can only give one bneficiary. obviously for home contents insurance this would be me. However, if I die in the housefire, then if I am married, my wife would get it all automatically. If I am gay, then my partner is evicted and it all goes to my next of kin (until distribution by testament). '

if you die your policy pays the beneficiary. whomever you nominate. if that is someone other than your wife that is the way it is. ordinarily your policy will be wound up by your executor, who will take into consideration the intent of your will and your nominations of beneficiaries of your various insurance policies, superannuation etc. i can't see what your problem is here.

regarding the house, this is a simple matter of getting your legal affairs in order. again, it is a stretch to accuse society of discrimination for one's failures to provide properly for loved ones. being gay is simply irrelevant so far as i can see from a legal standpoint.

'Furthermore, if I go into a coma, then my next of kin gets to make the decisions (which in many cases could include the decision to ban the partner from the hospital ward). I would need to furnish a power of attourney form before going into a coma to prevent this.'

your next of kin is whomever you nominate as your next of kin. hospital admission forms, drivers licence applications etc. and yes, living wills. in the absence of formal documentation giving effect to these things, clearly hospital staff will follow a presumption of relationships under the circumstances that will follow both tradition and common sense. i sure wouldn't want hospital staff pulling the life support because joe blow walked off the street claiming to be my gay partner and insisting that it's 'what i would have wanted'...i mean..really...

again..this is not a gay issue. the same problems apply to ANY couples who are not formally married. the answer is if you are aware this might be problematic to take appropriate steps beforehand.

'the whole issue is that gay partners should not NEED to take these precations simply to achieve what is commonplace for straight relationships!!!! This is the whole definition of equality!'

the issue isn't inequality between straight and gay couples. the issue is the absence of automatic confirmation of status of relationship for any couples who are not formally married. that includes ALL single people of any gender preference and hetero de facto couples. notwithstanding this, you are correct to note that gays are precluded from this automatic acceptance by not having access to a formal legal recognition of a gay marriage. as i alluded to earlier, this is not so simple as passing a statute. such a statute would affect (and in many cases invalidate) MASSES of other law. i mentioned tax. for the record i think the principle involved in such a legal change is sufficient to suffer the legal chaos that would follow. just pointing out that that would be very complicated.

'we were talking about extreme situations, where gay couple are NOT equal under the law.'

it is a matter of LAW in oz that a person cannot be treated differently on the basis of their gender preference ALONE. the last word in that sentence is important. some of the examples you give of anti gay discrimination are in fact examples of legitimate discrimination based on circumstances that gay people might find themselves more likely to be in by virtue of being gay. that is not actually the same thing. access to ivf treatment is illustrative of this distinction.

'whaaaaaaaaat??? they were [the tasmanian anti gay laws] law for a good year or so.

because no one was ever charged under these laws, (police actually refused to do it), and the laws were laer repealed, they are what is known as 'empty law'. it is as tho the law never actually existed.

'Just because laws are repealed, that doesn't make the society/system that allowed them in the first place any better. These legal processes sometimes take decades. Where is the equality in that?? Simply repealing aboriginal integration policy or mandatory sentencing doesn't wipe away the inequality, the shame and the feeling that it could happen again -- any day. The simple fact that such a law as the gay discrimination laws in tasmania can pass in a state of australia shows just how far from equality we really are. '

a bad law was made, never used and later repealed. the net (practical) effect on people's lives was zero. of course one get get pissed off and upset that the law was ever passed. the point that everywhere in oz the law was attacked by all stratas of oz society and was rapidly pulled down cannot be so easily passed over. i think it does a disservice to what actually happened. ordinary people saw that it was wrong and forced the politicians to back down. as for whether shame persists beyond making amends, this is utterly wrong and is the foundation for vengeance and bitterness. having addressed an error, appropriate compensation and apology and conciliation DOES wipe the slate. we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers, merely to ensure that they are corrected. in the example you gave, i have heard no aboriginal on this issue say anything to the contrary. your claim that a society that repeals a bad law is 'no better' than the society which made that law is just incomprehensible to me.

as for what is possible in the future...well that is the downside of democracy. fact is, if it is the will of the people to kill every blue eyed baby born in the year 2005 there isn't a lot i can do or say about that in 2002, except to encourage what i believe to be better moral values in the community i live. but one could go crazy imagining what 'might' happen.

'I presume you are not gay and have never had to deal with any of these issues. You probably also don't have any gay friends that have been in such horrid situations. obviously, cos otherwise you could not make statements that lack any insight into the issues gays have to deal with on a regular basis. if there is no problem, then why does it become a problem for so many gays??

my gender preferences are not public issues. nor are my friends or my experiential understandings of australian society. whatever i could say about these things will not effect whether my points are true or valid or not. i never said anything so absurd as that gays do not have problems by virtue of their being gay. i simply gave you, in the first instance, a simple account of how the law currently stands. i also gave you some worthwhile advice on trusts. as with all free advice, it might only be worth what you paid for it, and you are free to reject it if you wish.

on the whole i see a lot of discrimination and harrassment every day. sometimes i have been the recipient of it. what i do know is that not only do gays not have a monopoly on being victims of social and political alienation they aren't even close to being the worst effected. and, as germaine greer has noted, gays are still men, in a male dominated society. and a household with two men in a partnership is economically a pair of aces. all things considered, gay men don't have a mountain of things to compain about oz society with regard to the fairness of their lives, at least in comparison to the growing number of genuinely disposessed and alienated people in our country. and if the things you mentioned in your post are the worst things to look forward to, all i can say is...you lucky, lucky bastard.

as for why we hear so much indication of grievance from gays perhaps the answer is unpleasantly too obvious. for the same reason we hear bugger all about the hardships of lesbians. think about it.

in the meantime i'm off to shed a few tears for alan jones who is doing it real hard because he is gay.

[This message has been edited by antigravitas (edited 08 May 2002).]

[Darklight]

Hey kids- flame war! Everyone get your custard pies at the ready

Originally posted by antigravitas:

the assumption would be that gay couples have a significantly higher risk assesment than married hetero couples.

That assumption itself sounds like institutionalised discrimination to me matey

the shift to full acceptance of gay marriages federally relates (primarily) to issues of taxation.

Bullshit.

simply, an open and unqualified acceptance of any claim to a gay marriage would lead to inevitable abuses of deductability and income splitting. this is not a small problem.

It also applies in reverse. It is equally possible for me to nominate a straight spouse and go for the income splitting thing under current laws.

Are you saying that equality under law opens up the possibility for hitherto impossible forms of criminal conduct? How charmingly naiive

if i were making a million a year it would be possible for me to arrange with, say, an employee or a housemate,blah blah blah

You can do that now, as a single person, with any person of the opposite sex. It still isn't legal.

if you die your policy pays the beneficiary. whomever you nominate.

Unless, under present law you had remarried a partner of the opposite sex since the nomination fo your beneficiary. The same right is *not* available to those in gay r'ships.

This sounds like hair splitting, but we are talking about things which do occur to ppl, often in extreme circumstances and whose effects are cumulative and can be life changing. Hence the fuss.

i can't see what your problem is here.

regarding the house, this is a simple matter of getting your legal affairs in order.

And maintaining them there forever, scraping over them again every time a change is made. While yes in theory we should all keep our legal docos up to date every day, regardless of our sexual preferences, let's face it who does? It's only a real hassle tho if you're involved in a same sex r'ship. The law provides an umbrella for monogamous heterosexual couples that is unavailable to those whose relationships are structured differently.

being gay is simply irrelevant so far as i can see from a legal standpoint

Then you are naiive. As I have said before, the differences in treatment often don't seem more than negligible until a crisis arises and then the effects are cumulative and life changing. I'll explore this in another post.

i sure wouldn't want hospital staff pulling the life support because joe blow walked off the street claiming to be my gay partner and insisting that it's 'what i would have wanted

Oh grow up. You really do have a poor grasp on this issue. This stunt can be pulled by anyone claiming to be your straight partner at the moment, the fact that equality under law might expand the scope to include you in such a scenario as you posed is no reason at all to maintain the discrimination.

Or are you worried that if equality under law were intstitutionalised ppl might sometimes assume you're gay? This constant referral to misidentification you makes seems to suggest that.

gays are still men, in a male dominated society. and a household with two men in a partnership is economically a pair of aces

Yeah, you bastards, we know, you're all the same, you live the same. You're all rich and frivolous, you don't have kids or if you do you shouldn't. You don't have the same family structures or needs, none of you. You can just go round spending your huge salaries on expensive dresses and depilitation cos you'd never put a cent towards your old mother's medical treatment or your dad's gold watch when he retires from the factory....

huh? That argument went out with the dinosaurs. Mind you, I haven't heard anyone quoting Germs for years in any capacity other than the excellence of her publicity machine.

Poofters are all alike is not a valid argument, nor is it a supportable observation IMO. Any more than any other generalisation.

all things considered, gay men don't have a mountain of things to compain about oz society with regard to the fairness of their lives, at least in comparison to the growing number of genuinely disposessed and alienated people in our country. and if the things you mentioned in your post are the worst things to look forward to, all i can say is...you lucky, lucky bastard.

The existence of inequality of one group is never an excuse to write off another's inequalities as irrelevant. Not once. We could start playing the I've-had-it-harder-than-you game, but its a fair bet shroomy or waterdragon would win cos that's the sort of comedy they excel at Anyhow its a stupid, cruel game and a weak retort.And no justification for nothing.

as for why we hear so much indication of grievance from gays perhaps the answer is unpleasantly too obvious.

No, it escapes me. I want to hear it from your lips, if you'll take your foot out long enough to enlighten us, it sounds like a shocker...

for the same reason we hear bugger all about the hardships of lesbians.

Shit you really haven't been here long have you, or you'd have heard me whinging too Though most of my day-to- day discrimination is from other dykes ( long discussion about the politics of oppression snipped for sanity ) and I can never get the right shade of nail polish to match the duco on my tank.

Of course that's not the end of it, but as I have exercised my right not to explore it until I think it relevant or I get the shits then unless someone else cares to take it up you're grasping at straws.

[Guest antigravitas]

this stuff is going to burn up half my day. can you limit your criticisms to at least halfway rational things? if i start letting things go thru to the keeper it's because they were no balls. pun intended.

higher risk for gay couples isn't something i conjured up. mortality rates for hetero married couples are lower than any other permutations. i could guess why that is but cause doesn't alter the reality. and we can pull our puddings and pretend that hiv in oz isn't a disease with a disproportionate impact on gay men and iv drug users. most people would accept that the latter should not be able to enter an insurance fund as tho their risk were identical to the main pool. that doesn't mean ALL gays have a higher mortality rate. it means that considered as a statistical group insurers need to account for that. i gave several examples of non gender preference related ways in which insurers do in fact do that. seems to me you are confusing what 'is' with what 'ought' to be.

'bullshit' is not an argument. i refer you to the classic python sketch on the matter. don't waste my time that way.

it is NOT possible to income split outside of incorporation or a trust. certainly not with PAYEE taxpayers. i mentioned trusts to torsten to point him in the right direction in this regard. it is however possible with regard to the mechanisms i mentioned. only an imbecile would marry someone in order to minimise their tax alone. hetero or otherwise. the problem with de facto marriages having the same status as 'ordinary' marriages relates to the ease with which they can be entered and left without corresponding property rights. if you accord equal status to de facto marriages in ALL aspects of property and taxation the NECESSARY implication is that everyone dating for longer than a year would be legally married. if this is the outcome we want to prevent inequalities because SOME people in de facto marriages don't pre emptively move to establish property rights etc of their loved ones then we must call that for what it is: overkill. i realise that sounds stupid. but i assure you it is what you are proposing involves.

the stuff about 'impossible crimes' and currently being 'able' to do things which are 'not legal' made no sense whatever. the point is that if all legal rights are conferred on whomever i claim is my partner merely by that claim, then this clearly has implications for avoiding paying tax. this is so simple i am suprised you have difficulty with it. to extend the case to make it even clearer...imagine if it were legal to nominate ANY child as your legal dependent. a court could quickly establish that no such relationship existed. not so for a spouse. unless you are proposing that tax officials put cameras in every bedroom in the country. which is about the only way a court could ever prove a false claim to partnership to be false.

the question of marriage and alteration of beneficiaries of estates you have backwards. marriage revokes all previous wills. (it does not automatically revoke the beneficiaries of an insurance policy) since only hetero marriages perform this revokation it has no impact upon gay estates. unless one of the partners has a sudden outbreak of straightness prior to death. in which case the gay relationship is (one supposes) over. notwithstanding this i can leave my entire estate to torsten if i wish. the fact that he is gay is utterly irrelevant. the fact that he is unknown to me by sight only slightly more relevant. and then only if my relatives should choose to embark on a contest of the will which would need to establish that the will was not valid in some way or was made in order to be vexacious.

keeping your legal affairs in order with regard to your estate is a burden for everyone who cares about their loved ones. again, gayness has nothing whatever to do with anything. the law provides for the care of spouses should the deceased die intestate. does this mean hetero defacto couples and gay couples have no claim on the estate? of course not. it means only that they need to declare to the executor their status. in a nutshell, a marriage licence acts as a fallback will where there is no actual will. is this an example of inequality? yes it is. should it be corrected? yes it should. does it amount to a grievous imposition on gay and hetero de facto couples? only the lazy and careless ones. jeezus, you can go to a newsagent and get a pro forma will and just fill in the blanks if you want. and the public trustee is free.

the other stuff was just crude and unintelligent ad hominen nonesense that doesn't really deserve reply.

but i will respond to your enquiry regarding why gay issues predominate over other issues of marginalisation that would objectively appear to be more deserving of our time.

in fact the admission itself that gay issues gain widespread coverage and avocacy refutes the claim to alienation and marginalisation. this is definitionally so. people in oz are protected in law from discrimination on the basis of their gender preference. that is a fact. and that is what i intended to relay to those who seemed unaware of that fact. does it mean that all australians like homosexuals and treat them with dignity and respect? of course not. but whom other peopel choose as their friends is not my concern. nor yours. people are free to associate with whomever they please. that's called freedom of choice. you need to decide whaether you are arguing for or against that proposition.

[Guest antigravitas]

True or False?

1. A gay couple on Centrelink benefits is entitled to more total benefits than a hetero married couple in otherwise identical circumstances. T/F

2. A gay person receiving Centrelink benefits does not need to declare his partner’s income or assets as part of assessment of benefits and a hetero person does. T/F

3. A person sharing a house with a person of the opposite sex will be required to demonstrate to Centrelink that they are not living in a de facto relationship. T/F

4. This can include interviews in the house, inspections of bedding arrangements, interviews with family and neighbours and a requirement to produce statutory declarations. T/F

5. Centrelink can terminate benefits without notice until the people concerned prove they are not a couple. T/F

6. None of (3) to (5) will apply to people living in a same sex relationship. T/F

7. Same sex partners can claim Carer’s benefits if their partners are terminally or seriously and chronically ill. T/F

8. There is no legal impediment to a gay person leaving any or all of his estate to his partner. T/F

9. It is illegal to discriminate against a person anywhere in Australia on the basis of their sexual preferences. T/F

10. There has been no prosecution for homosexuality anywhere in Australia for nearly 50 years. T/F

11. Average household incomes for gay couples are higher than for hetero couples. T/F

12. Average disposable income for gay couples is higher than for hetero couples. T/F

13. There is no economic or social indicator that supports the hypothesis that gay men in Australia suffer any form of widespread or institutional discrimination. T/F

[Torsten]

antigravitas, you are still not grasping the concept of equality. It is when an individual (or group) has to make no special effort to be regarded equal under the law and in society. You say that gays or anyone can get their affairs in order whenever and however they want, but the whole point is that the law provides for certain things to be automatic and that gays do not enjoy the same automatic mechanisms.

I doubt that you will graps this concept as you have yourself made some distateful comments of discrimination. Sure, we are protected by many laws and equality by law is not a long way away, but it is the realisty of everyday life that matters. Aboriginals and other minority groups in australia are also protected by law aganst discrimination, but you can't seriously claim that they are being treated equal!!

As for my references to gays, they should at all times include lesbians. There are very few people in the gay & lesbian community who make a distinction in these terms. And while on the topic of lesbians, you argument re gay couple health insurance just collapsed, as this option is not available to lesbian couple who are obviously not affected by the economics of the same risk group. So while I accept that male couples do present a higher risk, then why can't two women join up as a couple?? But I also take your point about private commercial decisions here, even though in actual fact such discrimination should be illegal too. Health insurance isn't allowed to single out fertile women for higher premiums just because they could produce a costly baby.

Your taxation issues are also mute simply because any of the scenarios you presented also apply to a hetero context. Your one sided approach to this simply underlines your own bias.

As for insurnace policies, I've just had a look, but other than my life insurance, none of my policies ask for a beneficiary. ie it is assumed that the person taking out the insurance is the beneficiary. Now I know that I CAN make arrangements for payouts to be directed wherever I wish, but the whole point of equality is once again that i should not need to. And simply, in gay relationships the partner is not considered entitled to anything AUTOMATICALLY.

As for the hospital issue you wrote:

the same problems apply to ANY couples who are not formally married. the answer is if you are aware this might be problematic to take appropriate steps beforehand.

Again, the issue is what happens automatically. If I have no nomination of next of kin that is available to the hospital, then under all circumstances the married wife would be the person to make any required decisions. if I am however married (in SA) to someone of the same sex, then this person does not get to make thse decisions. We are once again not talking about what CAN be prearranged, but what is done automatically.

You also said that the law protects gays and that laws such as the tasmanian law are empty as they were never enforced. Well, isn't that exactly the problem we are having with the anti-terrorism legislation at the monent?? making laws that we are never going to use for anything that the civil liberty groups imply we could use them for? isn't the whole point of a law to give direction to the authorities and the community, rather than just sitting there looking voluminous?? Such a law put tasmania on a cultural equal with places like south africa and some oppressive arab regimes.

An unjust law is fine as long as it not applied - my ass!

Noen of these issues matter to me. I have enough money to pay for solicitors to keep my affairs in order and I am educated enough to know what I need to do to make sure that both myself and my partner are protected. None of your advice is needed by me. However, Daniel and I are in the vast minority. Most people simply don't know these problems exist or are poorly advised by people with their own bias. And many simply can't afford to take all the steps to make sure they are covered. After all, even in matters of testament, it depends on how good the lawyers are on both sides of the issue.

As I said, none of these issues affect me personally. But I have amny friends who have suffered from this discrimination and who are still suffering. And I know even more who have no idea what potentially disastrous situation they are in if things should go wrong one day.

I read with interest your last post in which you desperately try to show up the benefits for gay couples. interestingly, you are right on most points, which goes to show that there is no equality. In an attemtp to show equality, you yourself uncovered instances where the inequality favours the gay couple. Inequality works both ways!!

[Guest antigravitas]

no argument from me that gays are the subject of discrimination in oz society. is that a problem immanant within the law? no it isn't. with the exception of formal gay marriages which would confer the same automatic property rights as everyone else. i have said i think the current situation is wrong and should be changed. i have given you some reasons why that change is not so simple as just passing a law. that doesn't mean i think it shouldn't happen. try reading what i actually posted on the matter and try to distinguish between a description of the current situation and what i advocate should be the case. they are different things and you are preaching to the choir torsten. and preaching in a way that imagines all sorts of things about my character that i shouldn't even need to respond to.

the bottom line is that you cannot make laws obliging people to like each other. and why would we want to?

i hope you and daniel are one day able to marry in the full sense of the law if you please. i am confident you will have that option sooner than you seem to think.

just a final word on a couple of points. i make a distinction between gay and lesbian because this distinction is usually made by the communities themselves and for good reasons. their social and political agendas are different (and on occasions conflicting), their circumstances are typically very different, and the issue of lesbian rights also encompass issues of gender oppression, an importance variance in experience and aspiration that canot be so easily blurred by a contrived nomenclature.

secondly, your refusal to find as acceptable ,'empty law', is contradicted by your posts on dutch cannabis law, which you seem to think works well. in fact cannabis is not decriminalised in that country, simply that law enforcement declines to make use of the relevant law. (tho as an aside, in recent times, under pressure from other euro countries and the usa this stance is being toughened). i never said the tas laws were or are acceptable. i said the practical effect was zero. which is simply the (from the legal standpoint) truth. like i would expect of all right thinking people i found them repugnant. that they were repealed and detested by all walks of australians (even to the point of police refusing to deal with them) is actually salutory. it is a good sign. you need to see that.

and my absolute last point on this matter returns to my first proposition on this topic:

human rights are indivisible

in your rush to put people into boxes and to treat as categories claimants on those rights, i too got put in a box. sometimes torsten, it is just too easy to fall into the same foibles as you are accusing of others.

stay wellsome. *s*

[Darklight]

i make a distinction between gay and lesbian because this distinction is usually made by the communities themselves and for good reasons. their social and political agendas are different (and on occasions conflicting)

That's a separate argument in itself and my personal position on that differs from the general, while I appreciate you regurgitating the argument just as it was parroted to you there is a wealth of diverse opinion within the GBLT community on this and many other topics rather than the total PC line. So no, when you say the gay community I take it to include the queer community generally. YMMV.

The GBLT 'comunity', like every other community, including this one, is far from a unified body with a single manifesto, and thus each individuals perceptions and experiences has the capacity to add to the development of social processes rather than wasting away under stasis.

gender oppression, an importance variance in experience and aspiration

Another separate discussion we've had often before you arrived which contained a diversity of opinion and experience. Your presumptions are your own, but they might not be ours

that canot be so easily blurred by a contrived nomenclature

Nomenclature, contrived as you have it, or not, is what people use to hone the finer points of distinction. Since you expertly twist your own arguments to reinforce your sense of martyred victimhood it is obvious that you are familiar with the process of self-abnegation via the judicious application of textual writhing. Or are you complaining when someone so thoroughly responds to your posts?

Whatever you're taking, you should stop. Or take it all at once.

I'll get back to work now

[Guest antigravitas]

i'm not complaining about anything. except the difficulty in getting you to address the issue. instead i get straw men arguments, red herrings, shameful misquotes of things i have posted and on and on and on.

i have now said this numerous times in numerous different ways: i shall say it again.

i support equality for gays and lesbians in every respect.

stop assuming you can read between the lines based on presumptions about my identity and portraying these imaginations as things i have actually said. i haven't. you are arguing with the ghosts inside your head.

all this started when i metaphorically put my arm around torsten's shoulder to say 'hey, you're not alone, and the good thing is that we are beating the bastards.' that at least was what i intended to convey, and re reading those earlier posts without a preconceived notion of my identity will allow you to see that. i understood that torsten felt that diminished the extent of the remaining discrimination against gays and that i was downplaying the real tragedies in people's lives. the truth of the matter is that i saw his reply as victimhood. my instinct was to demolish that as a percursor to the realisation of a sense of empowerment. frankly, i made an error of judgement. but this doesn't mean that chemsha's posts weren't totally idiotic and that your contributions weren't full of half baked assumptions and wonky inferrences.

all this stuff about what bad drugs i am on and about my character and all the other personal crap....you should lose that. all it made me think was that i was dealing with someone who couldn't cope. and the honest bare truth is that you DON'T read very well. try to fix that as well.

it seems to me that we probably agree on most core issues. if you can lay down your fear of me for 5 minutes and abandon your preconceptions about who and what i am, you might discover that you can learn something from me, as i am sure i can learn something from you. but you will have to stop listening with your mouth first. *s*

peace. stay wellsome.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by antigravitas:

the truth of the matter is that i saw his reply as victimhood. my instinct was to demolish that as a percursor to the realisation of a sense of empowerment.

Oh dear, another do-gooder for the gay scene

I am not a victim. I hate being a victim and usually liberate myself from such positions very quickly. I doubt a victim would do the work I do. I have empowered myself and empower others, and before I did this in the ethnobotany community, I did it in the gay community and before that I did it in the rave community. I also made it clear that none of these issues affect me directly as I am in a fortunate position of finance, education and experience. Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about poele the way you do, as you are obviously not all that good at it.

Torsten is not a victim.

Assassin is not stupid.

Darklight's literary skills are not inadequate.

Maybe you should get to know the people here before getting on your high horse. We are not all jellybrained hippies. In fact most conversations have more substance than what you have brought to the forums up to now. Maybe once you realise that many of the people here have actually more substance than you, it will be easier for you to read rather than write. Intentional shit stirrers are usually shortlived on these forums.

[Guest antigravitas]

significant that when you quote me you omit my concession that i made an error of judgement with regard to that very statement. it is exactly that sort of misrepresentation that i have objected to from the beginning. it is either poor reading or it is deliberately dishonest. i have chosen to take the charitable view that it is the former, but that i admit is a concession to the general civility of the discussion. if i ever believed it i don't believe it now. as for a 'do gooder' for the gay community.... i did nothing more than wish you well and affirm that i hold that you are entitled to the same human rights as everyone else. call that whatever you want. it doesn't matter. i made no assumptions about your status. what you wrote about the lack of empowerment in the gay community WAS a victimhood statement whether it applied to YOU directly or not. if i made a mistake in challenging that approach i most certainly do not accept i made a mistake in identifying it for what it was.

as for 'getting to know people' before i venture an opionion. are you serious? i say what i believe regardless of what context i find myself in. the suggestion i should do otherwise is offensive.

calling assasin 'stupid' was a throwaway thing i think any normal person would see as sharp edged humour. if you weren't so precious about this stuff you would see that. and given the stuff i have been called in the last 2 weeks...i mean...get a grip. in any event if (s)he REALLY had some angst over it then i apologise.

thru the whole course of my journey thru this forum what has struck me is the complete absence of a sincere desire to enter into genuine discourse. you won't like me saying that and will doubtless say it isn't my place to comment. but hey pal. you INVITED me to come here and post. and then URGED me to keep posting. if you want it to be a private tea party for people with opinions that don't require modification then take the registration stuff off the site and stop emailing people to encourage them to post.

i am a member of numerous net communities. some for the better part of a decade. i didn't visit shaman-australis to add to that list. i came looking for product. from the moment i said 'hello' here i was receiving nitwit posts. truth is if i hadn't posted what i did earlier in this thread you would have needed to have invented something negative that i said. and sure enough, that's sorta what some folks did.

and after all the piss and wind i've been reading about how bad and disrespectful and all the other stuff i have been...not ONCE has ANYONE had the honesty the quote me accurately and in proper context to support those stupid assertions.

i've bent over backwards to obtain clarity. i have tried to inject some light hearted humour into the threads. all to little effect. while you might find comfort in the notion that it is ME who is out of kilter (bigots often take this view), in the end the only truth is in the words themselves, and how the author constructs a proper and legitimate argument. the fact that i saw precious little of that from anyone here leads me to the conclusion that you are seriously delusional on that score.

i am genuinely disappointed to find so many minds in one place so reluctant to entertain something different to whatever prevails. it kept me hanging here longer than this stuff deserved. mea culpa.

[Gwydion]

antigravitas wrote:

"i am a member of numerous net communities. some for the better part of a decade. i didn't visit shaman-australis to add to that list. i came looking for product. from the moment i said 'hello' here i was receiving nitwit posts. truth is if i hadn't posted what i did earlier in this thread you would have needed to have invented something negative that i said. and sure enough, that's sorta what some folks did."

Yes, it is true, when you introduced yourself to this forum, the immediate response contained a lot of childish material. Some of it distasteful. It was also explained to you that we have this friend (CS) who likes to be crude amd troublesome sometimes, but we've just learnt to lump it and love him.

You do not have to love him, and you do not necessarily have to lump him either- he rarely leaves the range of this and a couple of other forums around here.

In fact, that's what I was meaning to ask about. Antigravitas- you say that you came here looking for 'product'. What kind of things are you interested in? I don't recall seeing you post to the other forums (I could be wrong).

"and after all the piss and wind i've been reading about how bad and disrespectful and all the other stuff i have been...not ONCE has ANYONE had the honesty the quote me accurately and in proper context to support those stupid assertions."

I hope this one is a bit better than you believe the others to have been.

Quite frankly, I believe that a lot of the arguments that have been flying around here are based upon simple misunderstanding, confounded by a few people being willing to accept the growth of dialogue without throwing in a few barbed words.

And to be fair, this is partly (and only partly) due to you, antigravitas, for your responses are often formed as outright challenges or are rude. It is also due to the reactions of other people here, who have also responded rudely at times.

No one appears to be without fault, and I'm not going to start at moral equivalence. I am firstly and foremostly suggesting that you all continue this interesting discussion (in which I am learning a lot, both factual, and about my own assumptions) IN A MORE CIVIL VEIN. No argument is ever going to reach a satisfactory conclusion if everyone keeps barbing each other.

Everyone has gotten a bit riled up. Antigravitas' time here began upon the wrong foot, which noone has done much to set aright. I think it's time you all calmed down a bit.

Gwydion

(who, for the record, is not (necessarily) gay, is anti-USA {America is a very big place}, but not necessarily anti-americanS (as in USA-dians), is not a lawyer (yet), accountant or married, is fairly lazy but still ridiculously busy, is a believer in equality for all; and, most importantly of all, loves all of you lot, and wishes that you'd behave a bit better, coz you're giving me a headache).

And please don't expect me to respond to any comments you will all have to share- I have to study and I regard that as more important than trying to separate people who are all on the same side. I shouldn't have written this, in fact.

[This message has been edited by Gwydion (edited 11 May 2002).]