Sensational-Adelaide.com

I think Rev's point may have been more to do with the use (or mis-use) of the word 'progressive'.

I'd agree to an extent that it's over-used and is becoming a throw-away term. There seems to be an increasing perception that doing something - anything - is 'progressive'. And if you do it before someone else does it, then you're even more 'progressive'. But if you do it only after someone 'below' you does it (e.g. - referencing Crawf - New Zealand), then you're not quite so progressive. And, by implication, if you're not 'progressive', then you're a bit backward and behind-the-times. In other words, using the word 'progressive' is actually a bit of a thinly-veiled insult towards those who don't agree.

But, really, whether something is progressive or not is a matter of opinion. Sure, many things can probably be considered progressive in general given widespread social beliefs, but certainly not everything. And, I'd argue, gay marriage, at the moment, is not (yet) something that we could overwhelmingly consider to be progressive. Some people may consider it progressive, but others may consider it regressive. So it's really playing the man, not the ball, to suggest that someone isn't 'progressive' just because they don't believe in gay marriage.

But if I've misinterpreted you, Rev, then I apologise in advance!

monotonehell wrote:

rev wrote:Fu** sake, is the use of the word progressive the replacement for calling everything world class?

Ah, and we have a Hollywood reference too.
So if Kardashian was in a same sex marriage, you think it would have lasted longer then 72 days?

Who cares what Magda thinks. Playing the sympathy, poor us, we are victims card. As if gay marriage is the biggest moral and ethical issue facing the world today.

Who cares how big Australia is compared to NZ?
What does that have to do with the topic? How does that relate to laws passed, to what is and isn't legal?

What exactly is your point, Rev?

What possible reason* could you have in objection to two consenting adults having access to the same legal arrangements as everyone else?
(*note that a reason must by definition have reasoning behind it.)

You've posted a lot of scoffing and drivel recently, skirting around the issue. You're obviously against it, you're obviously not gay, so how does it affect you at all?

Who says I'm opposed to it? I don't really care whether same sex couples get to legally wed or not..as you said, it doesn't affect me at all..but if the government decides to legislate to legalize same sex marriages, I hope it is not something that is forced upon religious groups. Whether it becomes legal or not wont change my life. Do I think it should happen? I don't see why not. From a religious perspective, should it be forced upon religion, then yes I can see why it shouldn't go ahead in that manner. But I wont get into that because I don't feel like engaging in a discussion about religion so long as drama queens like shuz are members of the forum.

There doesn't need to be a public debate, because most normal people with common sense and logic aren't opposed to it.
It is the minority who become vocal when this issue is thrown in their faces, that cause all the commotion. Look where letting the minority have the biggest say, has gotten our city in terms of development all these decades.

And I don't think we should be throwing around terms like progressive so loosely. As Maximus better put into words.
We should be doing things because they are the right thing to do, not because we have to for some reason keep up with what others are doing. The right thing to do obviously is to allow same sex couples to legally get married(as long as it isn't forced upon religions, because then that would be the wrong thing, like it would be to force religion on everyone).

Or are you suggesting, that because it has no relevance to me, that I therefore should not have any opinion on the matter?

[Shuz] wrote:Actually, I think rev is gay.

Aw what's wrong princess, you still cut up that I made an issue out of you deleting posts and they decided to remove you from the moderators list?
Don't you have some "insider information" on when gay marriage will be legislated? Come on, tap into your sources a little harder.

rev wrote:but if the government decides to legislate to legalize same sex marriages, I hope it is not something that is forced upon religious groups. Whether it becomes legal or not wont change my life. Do I think it should happen? I don't see why not. From a religious perspective, should it be forced upon religion, then yes I can see why it shouldn't go ahead in that manner. But I wont get into that because I don't feel like engaging in a discussion about religion so long as drama queens like shuz are members of the forum.

I don't understand why this keeps coming up. It's already been stated that it won't be forced on religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, should it be legalised.

I was merely explaining my position/opinion on the issue to Mono.

rev wrote:...Or are you suggesting, that because it has no relevance to me, that I therefore should not have any opinion on the matter?..

Nope I'm good now, thanks Rev. You were just confusing me with all your posts, I couldn't work out what you were saying.

monotonehell wrote:

rev wrote:...Or are you suggesting, that because it has no relevance to me, that I therefore should not have any opinion on the matter?..

Nope I'm good now, thanks Rev. You were just confusing me with all your posts, I couldn't work out what you were saying.

No worries Mono. Sorry for the confusion, some posts may have been made after a few drinks

I was making a genuine comment, Rev. I admit my memory's a little hazy, but I simply said that based on my recollection of some of the conversations that went around on the forums back in 2007/2008 when I remember there was (and probably still is) a significant number of gay males present on the forums. I wasn't having a go at you in any way. In fact, had you replied in a different tone and manner, I would have been more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

But seeing as you've reacted so strongly, unwarrented and without any real justification, it certianly seems to imply that you take some sort of offence against homosexuals, thus just making you yet another straight bigoted homophobic idiot.

I actually had nothing against you, but now that you've just come out guns blazing with completely unsubstantiated attacks on me, I do have an issue.

So you know what Rev, society has no place for people like you. And quite frankly, I know I am the better person here and I will leave it at that and just ignore your pathetic crap from now on. I don't really want to waste my precious breath having to defend myself seeing as I have better things to do, like, actually contributing to these forums they way people ought to. Maybe from now on I'll just keep the inside information to myself. Why should I share when there's people like you who just abuse others for no reason?

At least I will give credit where credit's due and thankyou for at least being honest enough to reveal that you're the little bitch who had a whinge to Howie about me deleting posts. But for good reason too, I should add, since you often post such bullshit. Hell, if I had my way, you'd go straight to the brig.

Obviously these posts will be deleted, but that's my 2c before it goes into the trash bin.

xoxo
The Drama Queen Princess.

Whoops, someones throwing a tantrum. Look out..

Any links to polls?

All I can find is links to Wiki which references Newspoll from March..

Better Premier, which I guess is preferred premier?
Weatherill 42% - Marshall 27%

Two party preferred
Labor 46% - Liberal 54%

(hopefully this doesn't qualify as "bullshit".. )

rev wrote:Any links to polls?

All I can find is links to Wiki which references Newspoll from March..

Better Premier, which I guess is preferred premier?
Weatherill 42% - Marshall 27%

Two party preferred
Labor 46% - Liberal 54%

(hopefully this doesn't qualify as "bullshit".. )

The latest Newspoll in SA covering the April-June quarter showed the Liberals leading 56-44, with a margin of error of 4.1 per cent.

Stretch... yawn... wow - Sept 2013!

Progressive is a good word to try to hijack for your side's exclusive use. It's an impressive word, and its opposite is regressive - a perfect word to describe your foes. It's like renaming the white-skinned races 'the clever races'. You're spreading a bit of propaganda every time you say it.

Last time I looked the Libs under Marshall were leading Labor in SA.

And because it wouldn't be right to ignore an opportunity to spread a little well-sourced factual information:

The gun barrel is slowy swivelling around to point straight at one of Julia Gilard's besties, Robyn McLeod, who was for a while SA's fabulously well paid Water Security Commissioner. It seems that the CV she provided to get the job doesn't actually hold water.

stumpjumper wrote:Stretch... yawn... wow - Sept 2013!

Progressive is a good word to try to hijack for your side's exclusive use. It's an impressive word, and its opposite is regressive - a perfect word to describe your foes. It's like renaming the white-skinned races 'the clever races'. You're spreading a bit of propaganda every time you say it.

That is true on social issues, and even arguable for environmental issues. But when it comes to economic issues, the label can't be hijacked so easily - it's totally objective. Progressive policies are the ones that benefit the poor more than the rich, while regressive policies are those that benefit the rich more than the poor.

Aidan wrote:

stumpjumper wrote:Stretch... yawn... wow - Sept 2013!

Progressive is a good word to try to hijack for your side's exclusive use. It's an impressive word, and its opposite is regressive - a perfect word to describe your foes. It's like renaming the white-skinned races 'the clever races'. You're spreading a bit of propaganda every time you say it.

That is true on social issues, and even arguable for environmental issues. But when it comes to economic issues, the label can't be hijacked so easily - it's totally objective. Progressive policies are the ones that benefit the poor more than the rich, while regressive policies are those that benefit the rich more than the poor.

that is an interesting slant on things really.

so if I come out and say tax 99% on income and give it to the poor, you would consider it progressive?

Waewick wrote:

Aidan wrote:

stumpjumper wrote:Stretch... yawn... wow - Sept 2013!

Progressive is a good word to try to hijack for your side's exclusive use. It's an impressive word, and its opposite is regressive - a perfect word to describe your foes. It's like renaming the white-skinned races 'the clever races'. You're spreading a bit of propaganda every time you say it.

That is true on social issues, and even arguable for environmental issues. But when it comes to economic issues, the label can't be hijacked so easily - it's totally objective. Progressive policies are the ones that benefit the poor more than the rich, while regressive policies are those that benefit the rich more than the poor.

that is an interesting slant on things really.

so if I come out and say tax 99% on income and give it to the poor, you would consider it progressive?

Yes - being progressive doesn't necessarily involve being practical or advantageous. So although I (and practically everyone else) would oppose such a plan, that wouldn't prevent it from being progressive.

Of the serious political proposals nowadays, the progressive ones do tend to make more economic sense than the regressive ones, but a tendency is not a defining characteristic.