Understand RF, but in reality I am paying to dispose of my rubbish... it's called rates :-)

That's correct, you pay rates, but if you had to pay to dispose of your sandwich wrapper as well, then that would be a double charge.

That's correct, you pay rates, but if you had to pay to dispose of your sandwich wrapper as well, then that would be a double charge.

I pay rates and then I have on the same bill an extra parks charge and water charge and other stuff. Is there a difference.

That's correct, you pay rates, but if you had to pay to dispose of your sandwich wrapper as well, then that would be a double charge.

Probably not RF, but if I was creating a lot more rubbish and using more than my fair share of landfill, then I suppose I would have to wear those extra costs.

Probably not RF, but if I was creating a lot more rubbish and using more than my fair share of landfill, then I suppose I would have to wear those extra costs.

But those extra costs don't actually dispose of your rubbish. The agreement says they'll collect in a few hundred years.

By then your future relations have made other arrangements. They also question your sanity for orchestrating such an agreement in the first place.

I pay rates and then I have on the same bill an extra parks charge and water charge and other stuff. Is there a difference.

Yes of course there will, they will add another column to include sandwich wrapper disposal.

Probably not RF, but if I was creating a lot more rubbish and using more than my fair share of landfill, then I suppose I would have to wear those extra costs.

What about if you go to the landfill (tip) pay to dispose of your rubbish and on the way out they charge you an additional tax for using the landfill (tip)?

I guess you might be saving mankind with your gesture, paying for landfill instead of throwing it in the street, but why should you pay twice.

When FFBB starts to reduce his intake and stop throwing his 50 a day sandwich wrappers in the gutter we might see some real progress, but I'm sorry your measly contribution won't cut it.

Gee this thread is running out of steam, should I mention Cory Bernardi's latest diatribes? He has a problem with families that don't meet the accepted standard and that the children invariably end up in trouble if they come from failed relationships, single parents or same sex partners.

A letter writer to the Age today pointed out that Joseph was a step father and look at the problems Jesus got himself into! Good point I thought. Maybe Cory's onto something.

Biffen, the best part of you ran down your mummy's leg.

Climate has always changed, so who would deny that ?

Nearly all scientists agree that CO2 warms the atmosphere, who has stated otherwise ?

By how much will these taxes in Australia cool the temperatures and when ?

Is the warming dangerous ?

The climate models have been wrong and reports state we now may come into a period of cooling. This on the back of 17 years without warming when the alarmists said otherwise.

Dope.

Read the first line again.

Corey Bernardi has written a book entitled"The Conservative Revolution"

Reviewers are calling it "retarded,garbage,bird cage liner and neocon tripe" amongst other accolades.

I was going to buy you a copy but then I remembered you can't really read or even comprehend what you read .

However,I will wait till tomorrow and get you some copies from the landfill.

Carry on whining-and I promise not to mention your many fathers again if you refrain from discussing my mother.

Corey Bernardi has written a book entitled"The Conservative Revolution"

Corey is the Conservatives gift to the great unwashed.

Btw, shouldn't you be picketing against EAST WEST link down at Clifton Hill ?

Gee this thread is running out of steam, should I mention Cory Bernardi's latest diatribes? He has a problem with families that don't meet the accepted standard and that the children invariably end up in trouble if they come from failed relationships, single parents or same sex partners.

I too don't agree that same sex couples should have children. How selfish of them.

I believe every child has the right to a Mother and Father. I believe every child has the right to the BEST opportunities in life. The BEST opportunities come from having a Mother and Father. Terribly backward and old-fashioned, I know.

The retort is that some children have shocking situations with deadbeat Dads and Mums. This is an unfortunate fact of life, but it doesn't change my view that it is in a child's best interests to have a Mother and Father. And it's the child's best interests that concern me, not the same sex couples.

As I said, terribly backward of me, I know.

The BEST opportunities come from having a Mother and Father. Terribly backward and old-fashioned, I know.

Agreed; it is backward and old-fashioned. The only word you forgot is "nonsensical".

I too don't agree that same sex couples should have children. How selfish of them.

I believe every child has the right to a Mother and Father. I believe every child has the right to the BEST opportunities in life. The BEST opportunities come from having a Mother and Father. Terribly backward and old-fashioned, I know.

Sorry, that just makes no sense at all. It would be far more sensible to say that the best opportunities come from growing up in a loving and caring environment.

Agreed; it is backward and old-fashioned. The only word you forgot is "nonsensical".

Perhaps you can explain how a child is better served by having two Dads as opposed to a Mother and Father ? Naturally you'll say that they might not be better served, but won't be any worse off.

The question isn't whether a [censored] couple can be good parents, the question is whether the child is in any way disadvantaged by being brought up in that scenario.

Rather than being glib try exercising your grey matter.

Sorry, that just makes no sense at all. It would be far more sensible to say that the best opportunities come from growing up in a loving and caring environment.

Yes, it does, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

Facts are, males and females have different traits. They nurture differently and have different emotional intelligence. How can a child be in the best possible environment when they are deprived of one of these traits that nature provided ? How can they not be disadvantaged when the balance isn't right ? They have two of one, rather than one of each.

We now live in a society consumed by selfism. You are conditioned to basically believe everyone has the right to have whatever they please. You now even think a child wouldn't be worse off. Talk about being conditioned by groups with an agenda. I couldn't give a stuff whether a couple wants a child. My concerns are for the welfare of the child and every child having the best possible outcome. I'm hard pressed to see that depriving a child of either a Mother or Father is in their best interests.

It may be old-fashioned, but it's also common sense. And gullible Nasher accuses me of being nonsensical.

Perhaps you can explain how a child is better served by having two Dads as opposed to a Mother and Father ? Naturally you'll say that they might not be better served, but won't be any worse off.

The question isn't whether a [censored] couple can be good parents, the question is whether the child is in any way disadvantaged by being brought up in that scenario.

Rather than being glib try exercising your gray matter.

Your unjustified one liner didn't deserve anything other type of response other than a glib one. Explain your position on how a child adopted by a same sex couple is disadvantaged and I might have something to respond to.

Yes, it does, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

Facts are, males and females have different traits. They nurture differently and have different emotional intelligence. How can a child be in the best possible environment when they are deprived of one of these traits that nature provided ? How can they not be disadvantaged when the balance isn't right ? They have two of one, rather than one of each.

We now live in a society consumed by selfism. You are conditioned to basically believe everyone has the right to have whatever they please. You now even think a child wouldn't be worse off. Talk about being conditioned by groups with an agenda. I couldn't give a stuff whether a couple wants a child. My concerns are for the welfare of the child and every child having the best possible outcome. I'm hard pressed to see that depriving a child of either a Mother or Father is in their best interests.

It may be old-fashioned, but it's also common sense. And gullible Nasher accuses me of being nonsensical.

The nurturing and emotional intelligence varies widely between all people. You couldn't assume that the inter-sex couple is going to have a better "balance" than the same-sex couple.

You also seem to be making the assumption that the alternative to a loving same sex couple adopting a child is a loving inter-sex couple adopting the child. That's not true, in Australia, the alternative is bouncing from foster home to foster home and waiting a very long time before finding stability and permanency, if at all. The fact is that there are far more children available for adoption than there are homes; we need all the loving homes we can get. If you think that's a better option than same-sex couple adopting, then you're a blatant homophobe trying to hide it in a facade of "won't somebody please think of the children?"

Even if I accepted stance that the inter-sex is somehow 'better' than the same-sex couple (which, to be clear, I completely reject), that's got little to do with the real issue.

Nice deletion, Nasher.

To answer your stupid premise...

Show me where I've asserted anything about adoption and foster homes ? You even asserted my stance was ''homophobic''. Give yourself an uppercut. As I've made clear, my opinion is ALL about a child's welfare.

Now that you've kindly asked... adoption in Australia is hopeless. It's far too hard and brilliant older parents aren't given opportunities. It needs a complete overhaul.

Also, your (deleted) comment that emotional well-being and ability to nurture is more individual based, rather than being linked to one's sex, is surely a joke ? Fancy thinking that an infant can get the right balance of nurturing and other needs from two males, or two females than a male and female. Males and females ARE different and a child is better served being loved and nurtured by both. There ARE different qualities and a child's best interest is to have both in their lives.

You don't agree ? Bully for you. The only studies I can link aren't worth sharing as they all have bias and are shot down by either side. So I'll have to use my common sense and leave you to contemplate yours.

EDIT: now it's back again ...

Nasher,

A correction - to my understanding, there are not a lot of children available for adoption in Australia. There are many children that can be fostered but the emotional problem with fostering is there is a period of impermanence where the birth parent(s) can apply to get the child back (and unless the birth parent(s) live in hopelessness -they usually succeed). Therefore lots of people are not prepared to foster .

As to the other arguments. Myth is right about one thing - it is about the child's needs - and as has been said - loving and nurturing are the "key ingredients" and those ingredients are not gender specific

There's too many people on Earth.

This is at the base of all the other issues facing us.

Too many Catholics and Muslims attempting to outbreed the other.

There are too many children without decent care.

I applaud same sex couples who wish to nurture a child in the modern world.

As for the sanctity of marriage-get real and take a fkn look at it.

Nobody respects it-it's just a party.

Two thirds of them fail.

Relationships are only as strong as the effort put in to them.

I cannot understand those who would wish to interfere in someone elses happiness or have it banned.

Right wing religious whackos like the "revolutionary conservative" need a public kicking.

Zealots interfering in future progressive govts should be executed( Did they learn nothing from 1789?)

Whackjob Christian soldiers beware.

loving and nurturing are the "key ingredients" and those ingredients are not gender specific

So two males can provide exactly the right nurturing and love as a male and female even though males and females are very different ?

Sure...

I'm discovering today that Nasher and Nutbean think that there's no difference between men and women. What an extraordinary claim. Now you'll say that's not what you meant. Well, if you state it's not what you meant then you'll acknowledge that men and women are in fact different and that a child is better served being brought up by one of each, as it appears nature intended. Or is that now out of date too.

Right wing religious whackos like the "revolutionary conservative" need a public kicking.

Zealots interfering in future progressive govts should be executed( Did they learn nothing from 1789?)

Whackjob Christian soldiers beware.

Islam is 100 hundred times more insidious than Christianity.

So two males can provide exactly the right nurturing and love as a male and female even though males and females are very different ?

Sure...

I'm discovering today that Nasher and Nutbean think that there's no difference between men and women. What an extraordinary claim. Now you'll say that's not what you meant. Well, if you state it's not what you meant then you'll acknowledge that men and women are in fact different and that a child is better served being brought up by one of each, as it appears nature intended. Or is that now out of date too.

I'm saying that all women and all men are different and how you can make a blanket statement about which couple is "better", I don't know.

What, specifically, does a woman and man couple offer, that, say, a woman and woman couple does not offer?

There's too many people on Earth.

This is at the base of all the other issues facing us.

Too many Catholics and Muslims attempting to outbreed the other.

There are too many children without decent care.

I applaud same sex couples who wish to nurture a child in the modern world.

As for the sanctity of marriage-get real and take a fkn look at it.

Nobody respects it-it's just a party.

Two thirds of them fail.

Relationships are only as strong as the effort put in to them.

I cannot understand those who would wish to interfere in someone elses happiness or have it banned.

Right wing religious whackos like the "revolutionary conservative" need a public kicking.

Zealots interfering in future progressive govts should be executed( Did they learn nothing from 1789?)

Whackjob Christian soldiers beware.

yeah biffo, stalin, mao and hitler had good "progressive" governments that didn't let whacko libertines and religous nuff-nuffs interfere with government

they also did a fair job on population control

So two males can provide exactly the right nurturing and love as a male and female even though males and females are very different ?

I state for a fact that two males can provide better love and nurturing than a male and female - but that is completely dependent on the specific two males and the male and female

I state for a fact that two males can provide better love and nurturing than a male and female - but that is completely dependent on the specific two males and the male and female

''Can'' being the operative word and I wouldn't disagree.

I assert that an optimum parenting situation would generally be, in fact nearly always be, a man and a woman. How one can argue otherwise seems extraordinary to me. But I actually do know why. If one agrees with my premise they can't argue that gay parenting is optimum, it becomes sub-optimum. And seeing as though the child is the all important person in this issue my argument would become overwhelmingly valid.