SSM postal vote

[Wrecker45 3,378]

12 hours ago, hardtack said:

1. Traditional western values I would have thought include a fair go for ALL... hence, the move is to enhancing our "traditional values" so that they are more inclusive.

2. Are you saying that there are no gay AFL players?  The AFL are standing up for the rights of those in their ranks who are currently affected by the marriage laws as they presently stand.

3. To hearken back to Nutbean's comment... can we take it that you don't vote in Federal or State elections as the parties never go to the polls with legislation drawn up.

1) A fair go for children is the ultimate aim and I believe a mother and father are the best way to provide that. Undderstand  that doesn't always work out and it isn't always perfect but it is preferable.

2) Statistics show there are almost certainly gay footballers. There are also drug users, wife beaters and victims of domestic violence (statistically more likely if they are gay). The AFL have a responsibility to look after their players. They should not be recommending how people vote. In doing so they will turn more people off the yes vote than they will encourage.

3) A ridiculous argument. I vote at every election based on the party with the platform I prefer most. Each party has a plethora of issues they support and they are elected to legislate them. This is a single issue postal vote where we are not being shown the consequences of one side of the argument. 

[hardtack 10,612]

27 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

1) A fair go for children is the ultimate aim and I believe a mother and father are the best way to provide that. Undderstand  that doesn't always work out and it isn't always perfect but it is preferable.

2) Statistics show there are almost certainly gay footballers. There are also drug users, wife beaters and victims of domestic violence (statistically more likely if they are gay). The AFL have a responsibility to look after their players. They should not be recommending how people vote. In doing so they will turn more people off the yes vote than they will encourage.

3) A ridiculous argument. I vote at every election based on the party with the platform I prefer most. Each party has a plethora of issues they support and they are elected to legislate them. This is a single issue postal vote where we are not being shown the consequences of one side of the argument. 

1. So, perhaps you might care to list for me, those Western countries whose traditional values you love to see preserved, that have not already granted same sex marriage legal status?

2. The AFL have a responsibility to look after their players, yes, but they also have a responsibility to represent their players.  They are NOT telling people how to vote, but they ARE stating their preference as they are no doubt aware of players in their ranks who are affected by this issue.

3.  Not a ridiculous argument at all... the platform that this mail vote was built on is that same sex partners will have the same legal rights and status as any other couple when it comes to getting married.  Opponents of SSM have been attempting to cloud/divert the issue by introducing the "thin end of the wedge" argument, claiming that this will impact on safe schools programs, gender fluidity, etc etc.  The platform for this vote has been stated in obvious enough terms, that would be no less or no more credible than any party running for election on any number of issues/promises.  In fact, if anything, but a single issue, this is probably less fraught with "danger" than the many promises of a political party running for election.

[nutbean 8,838]

14 hours ago, daisycutter said:

what senatorial aspirant from any political party wouldn't lobby hard to get the highest party ticket position possible?

My problem with Bernardi is and let me quote Scott Morrison in Feb of this year.

Treasurer Scott Morrison reminded Bernardi  - "At the last election he was elected as a Liberal senator by Liberal voters to support the Liberal Party in this Parliament and be part of our team," Morrison told reporters on Monday morning.

So no sooner does he get elected as liberal, he jumps ship as a conservative.

That's all well and good but then he has the temerity to say  "The same-sex marriage advocates are asking the Australian people to write them the equivalent of a blank cheque,"

Isn't that a bit rich coming from the bloke who happily got elected on the liberal party "blank cheque" and then filled in the cheque details signing it "Australian Conservative Party". 

Not sure that Bernardi knows the meaning of the word hyprocricy. 

 

[nutbean 8,838]

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

.

 A ridiculous argument. I vote at every election based on the party with the platform I prefer most. Each party has a plethora of issues they support and they are elected to legislate them. This is a single issue postal vote where we are not being shown the consequences of one side of the argument. 

Ummmm...you are not being shown the consequences of voting for a party and their plethora of issues either - the party is elected on issues and policy and we "trust" on how they will legislate. You are unaware of the consequences. 

The only difference between this postal plebescite and a general election is the number of issues you are voting on. 

And there is only one consequence to this vote  - everything else speculation and conjecture. 

[daisycutter 29,711]

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

My problem with Bernardi is and let me quote Scott Morrison in Feb of this year.

Treasurer Scott Morrison reminded Bernardi  - "At the last election he was elected as a Liberal senator by Liberal voters to support the Liberal Party in this Parliament and be part of our team," Morrison told reporters on Monday morning.

So no sooner does he get elected as liberal, he jumps ship as a conservative.

That's all well and good but then he has the temerity to say  "The same-sex marriage advocates are asking the Australian people to write them the equivalent of a blank cheque,"

Isn't that a bit rich coming from the bloke who happily got elected on the liberal party "blank cheque" and then filled in the cheque details signing it "Australian Conservative Party". 

Not sure that Bernardi knows the meaning of the word hyprocricy. 

 

what's that got to do with a pollie lobbying hard for the best senate ticket position? different issue entirely

p.s. i don't like bernardi either

p.p.s. no need to shout

Edited September 22, 2017 by daisycutter

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Ummmm...you are not being shown the consequences of voting for a party and their plethora of issues either - the party is elected on issues and policy and we "trust" on how they will legislate. You are unaware of the consequences. 

The only difference between this postal plebescite and a general election is the number of issues you are voting on. 

And there is only one consequence to this vote  - everything else speculation and conjecture. 

Let me make this a bit easier for you to understand.

general election - multiple issues and promises. Unfortunately, the elected party almost always fails to deliver on what they promised.

postal vote - single issue outside of election. Of course the details relevant to the single issue should be transperant.

[nutbean 8,838]

42 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what's that got to do with a pollie lobbying hard for the best senate ticket position? different issue entirely

p.s. i don't like bernardi either

p.p.s. no need to shout

Sorry about the shouting - should have reduced the quote !

I don't have a problem with a pollie lobbying hard as possible for the best senate ticket position. I don't even have a problem when it was being widely circulated prior to the last election that Bernardi was going to up and form his own party. He well may have been elected in his own right as a Australian Conservative but he got elected by liberal voters and defected soon after. Again  - good on him - he played the game of doing anything to get elected. But then to suggest to not vote for something because you don't know what your voting for can easily translates to don't vote for Bernardi as you dont know what you are going to get. People voted for a liberal and quickly got a conservative.

Edited September 22, 2017 by nutbean

[dieter 3,325]

4 minutes ago, nutbean said:

People voted for a liberal and quickly got a conservative.

Is there a difference, nutters?

Sure, there are shades, but to me it's more like grades of shady.

Reminds me of the nutshop in Nicholson street North Carlton which changes its name in about 1992 to 'Shady Nuts.'

[nutbean 8,838]

Just now, dieter said:

Is there a difference, nutters?

Sure, there are shades, but to me it's more like grades of shady.

Reminds me of the nutshop in Nicholson street North Carlton which changes its name in about 1992 to 'Shady Nuts.'

Let me rephrase - Liberal voters elected a senator who was bound to vote along party lines ( yes - we know that pollies do cross the floor) but ended up with a senator who walked away from that constraint and  can vote exactly as he sees fit. 

[dieter 3,325]

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Let me rephrase - Liberal voters elected a senator who was bound to vote along party lines ( yes - we know that pollies do cross the floor) but ended up with a senator who walked away from that constraint and  can vote exactly as he sees fit. 

I get it, old boy. Like I say, shades of shady in that Liberal/National neck of the woods.

[nutbean 8,838]

I'm pretty much done here.

It is what it is and one can only hope that the scare mongering that is currently happening won't sway the vote.

 

 

[Jara 1,153]

On 22 September 2017 at 8:56 AM, Wrecker45 said:

It's not muddying the waters when it is genuine concern. I know people who have been organising floats at the Mardi Gras sine the late 90's who are embarrassed that groups like GetUp! and antifa are pretending to represent the gay community when in reality they don't and are fighting a battle for themselves.

 

I really only know two couples in same-sex relationships - all of them seem to recognise that we need a broad coalition of support to get this thing through (not that any of them were in favour of the plebiscite in the first place- all wanted a simple parliamentary vote). Have you discussed this with your friends organising the floats? Why not ask them which way they'd like you to vote?  There are all sorts of people supporting the yes vote - including rabid lefties like Christopher Pyne, Warren Entsch (sp?) Turnbull, Birmingham, etc.

 

It's ridiculous - and disappointingly illogical - to say you won't support an issue because it is also supported by other groups you don't like. Getup and antifa members are presumably in favour of drinking water - are you against that too?    

[Demon trucker 1,800]

This is the fact, all who believe in god if you vote yes then you are condemn to hell, but if you vote no you may still go to hell, God never changes his mind and is never wrong, man might change his mind God never does, sorry if this offend people, but that's the way it is.

[Biffen 12,944]

13 hours ago, Jara said:

I really only know two couples in same-sex relationships - all of them seem to recognise that we need a broad coalition of support to get this thing through (not that any of them were in favour of the plebiscite in the first place- all wanted a simple parliamentary vote). Have you discussed this with your friends organising the floats? Why not ask them which way they'd like you to vote?  There are all sorts of people supporting the yes vote - including rabid lefties like Christopher Pyne, Warren Entsch (sp?) Turnbull, Birmingham, etc.

 

It's ridiculous - and disappointingly illogical - to say you won't support an issue because it is also supported by other groups you don't like. Getup and antifa members are presumably in favour of drinking water - are you against that too?    

I can understand Wreckers stance on the issue and will try to explain it as I see it.

Protest,counter culture, social division and class warfare emerged here and in America in the 60's,partly fuelled by media images of "wrongs" committed in Vietnam ,It barely existed in Britain,although socialism grew very strongly there after WW2.

Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, which was a political and social symbol of world division ,the communist/marxist zeitgeist needed a new lease of life to maintain itself and it's compulsive search for revolution.None seemed forthcoming as the USSR collapsed and even Russia became a capitalist Mecca,if you will.

in about 1990,the leftists, seeing the basis of their ideology in ruins, began to attach themselves to any other cause that might bring down capitalism,as the failings of Marx and Engels philosophy lead to an emptiness of rhetoric and action.From then on,Christian religion became fair game for trade unionists, leftist zealots etc.After Christianity there was "the patriarchy" ,which is seen by them as a capitalist construct "set up " to oppress others, with white men seen as particularly reprehensible in this although as far as I know Men are the fathers of most children everywhere in the world but white men are the most likely to stick around and actually raise their own kids as a cursory glance at statistics will show you..From that point, men and heterosexuality became a target for the revolution until the focus shifted to "The West".

As capitalism continued it's triumphant march into Asia ,we began to see these minority groups align themselves ,though disparate in nature, into a cause celebre ,ragtag riot squad  protesting as a way of life in itself, a rambling mess of students,organised through Universities international with the help of Western,left leaning governments who sought to "stick it to the man".(G20 ,London riots and Occupy come to mind)

So pervasive did this become in Western society that an entire generation began to believe that any change was worthwhile and must be promulgated.Western civilisation started to eat itself in a kind of self defeating admission that its power was based on a model of corruption and exploitation that must be halted.

The Next major event was 9/11 ,which sent the west into the Middle east again, this time united against the the forces of radical Islam,but not for long.So entrenched has the protest movement become that the very serious threat of terrorism was seen as "cooked up" and that Islamists were the victims.Now we see the coming together of Asia and the west in a very powerful period of international growth for humanity as a whole,We have never before been healthier,wealthier or larger as a species.the biggest loser of course being the natural environment ,which is another problem for the resentful left to put upon "the Man".

Finally,having eradicated hunger, water shortages, absolute poverty, and lack of education, though not entirely, the Leftist agenda started to attach itself to the poor Muslims,the last ones left to defend against the rampaging sands of time and western civilisation.The search for equality and a cause there found an ally who could feed the narrative of anti-US protest, despite the horrible conflicts of interest to the random causes it already aligned itself with.Womens basic rights to marry, work eat etc were neglected or explained as merely"cultural difference".The treatment of homosexuals is ignored here too as are human rights,  a free press etc.

After the Arab spring,which itself was fuelled by activism, the lunatic left began to turn back on itself, seeing the instability of government in the Middle East and it's devastating effect on millions there.Of course, wanting to have their cake and eat it too, some say Saddam,Gaddafi etc were better in retrospect and should have been left in charge.Idiotically,the most guilt ridden Western nation of all,Germany,sought to open itself to Syrian men of fighting age who deserted their families and country in order to flee what was/is a civil war of Islam ,using ancient Syria merely as a global stage.

After Brexit,then the Donald it appears to be retreating back into civil disturbance.Black Lives matter(a bogus coalition of fools) ,SSM,Gender non conformist,trannys etc.

Cultural Marxism cannot end because, just like the Military industrial complex, there is too much invested in it from our universities, media outlets and "elite" (educated classes) and our political parties on the left all over the west.The push for SSM is just another symbolic and useless attempt to destroy the social fabric of a healthy society ,but one we are strong enough to tolerate since it tends to cross the political divide in this country.

Aside from the unknown social consequences, it is a tiring drain on the taxpayer and a waste of oxygen.We have had celebrated gay men and women for decades in Australia.Some will oppose it because they have become conservative as a reaction to the mindless change and non-stop causes floating through the marxist media.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction-something the protesters are coming to realise.Some see the breakdown of the traditional family as a tactic to totally destroy any sense of nationalism, respect,and social cohesiveness,"up yours " to the mums and Dads of the post war period. Some see the safe schools program as a way to confuse our children and their future.If it were a communist tool to soften our society for invasion, it would seem to be working.Note, however, the treatment of gay people in Russia.

The constant push for change in itself is tiring many in the west and a new type of conservative has emerged to defend the status quo-which of course is not possible.

Some of these people are happy to see cultural change, some aren't, but the rampant, aggressive,bolshy,pushy,language altering, demonising nature of the protest/change movement(left in the old terms) has found an equal and opposite reaction that just want things left alone.Some people want to go through a day without having the Australia they grew up in shifted and morphed into a student union party.Some very open minded people have realised the futility and expense of change for the sake of it, of mindless internationalism, of language distortion and the constant attempts to immasculate Western society.SSM is just another one of these attempts to some.In the end it is not going to save a life, stop a suicide,or do any of the things it is alleged to do.It is another social change because there is a massive industry to benefit from it in our Schools,govt funded bodies,media ,charities and health systems.

Some can see these charades for what they are-a temper tantrum form an irresponsible generation of idiotic children that have no notion of responsibility ,national pride, respect for their elders ,traditions or themselves.

It's another excuse for big brother to step into our private world - the issue itself is nothing important to anyone.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Biffen

[Jara 1,153]

Yoicks, Biff - that's a whopper post. Things must be quiet in Altona. No time to answer it all, but one quick question - based on the (relatively few) friendships I've had with gay or transgender people, I'd say they've led very stressed lives (one transgender woman I know has been beaten in the street a couple of times, and constantly cops abuse). The simple fact that no AFL footballer has come out is similar evidence of this.

 

One of the arguments in favour of ssm is that it will, hopefully, encourage the wider community to accept gays and reduce the amount of crap they have to put up with. Think of a gay teenager in a country town, how he has to hide the instincts he was born with, the stress this must cause (I grew up in a country town - was amazed, when I was in third year uni, when the guy who'd been my best friend all my life told me he was gay - I may be a bit thick, but I had absolutely no idea - I felt so ashamed of all the homophobic banter the rest of us had engaged in in the playground, the footy club, etc).  

 

Given all of the above, how can you say that the legal recognition of ssm will not reduce the suicide rates?   

[dieter 3,325]

12 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

This is the fact, all who believe in god if you vote yes then you are condemn to hell, but if you vote no you may still go to hell, God never changes his mind and is never wrong, man might change his mind God never does, sorry if this offend people, but that's the way it is.

So you know what god wants, right? What drugs are you on???????

[dieter 3,325]

11 hours ago, Biffen said:

I can understand Wreckers stance on the issue and will try to explain it as I see it.

Protest,counter culture, social division and class warfare emerged here and in America in the 60's,partly fuelled by media images of "wrongs" committed in Vietnam ,It barely existed in Britain,although socialism grew very strongly there after WW2.

Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, which was a political and social symbol of world division ,the communist/marxist zeitgeist needed a new lease of life to maintain itself and it's compulsive search for revolution.None seemed forthcoming as the USSR collapsed and even Russia became a capitalist Mecca,if you will.

in about 1990,the leftists, seeing the basis of their ideology in ruins, began to attach themselves to any other cause that might bring down capitalism,as the failings of Marx and Engels philosophy lead to an emptiness of rhetoric and action.From then on,Christian religion became fair game for trade unionists, leftist zealots etc.After Christianity there was "the patriarchy" ,which is seen by them as a capitalist construct "set up " to oppress others, with white men seen as particularly reprehensible in this although as far as I know Men are the fathers of most children everywhere in the world but white men are the most likely to stick around and actually raise their own kids as a cursory glance at statistics will show you..From that point, men and heterosexuality became a target for the revolution until the focus shifted to "The West".

As capitalism continued it's triumphant march into Asia ,we began to see these minority groups align themselves ,though disparate in nature, into a cause celebre ,ragtag riot squad  protesting as a way of life in itself, a rambling mess of students,organised through Universities international with the help of Western,left leaning governments who sought to "stick it to the man".(G20 ,London riots and Occupy come to mind)

So pervasive did this become in Western society that an entire generation began to believe that any change was worthwhile and must be promulgated.Western civilisation started to eat itself in a kind of self defeating admission that its power was based on a model of corruption and exploitation that must be halted.

The Next major event was 9/11 ,which sent the west into the Middle east again, this time united against the the forces of radical Islam,but not for long.So entrenched has the protest movement become that the very serious threat of terrorism was seen as "cooked up" and that Islamists were the victims.Now we see the coming together of Asia and the west in a very powerful period of international growth for humanity as a whole,We have never before been healthier,wealthier or larger as a species.the biggest loser of course being the natural environment ,which is another problem for the resentful left to put upon "the Man".

Finally,having eradicated hunger, water shortages, absolute poverty, and lack of education, though not entirely, the Leftist agenda started to attach itself to the poor Muslims,the last ones left to defend against the rampaging sands of time and western civilisation.The search for equality and a cause there found an ally who could feed the narrative of anti-US protest, despite the horrible conflicts of interest to the random causes it already aligned itself with.Womens basic rights to marry, work eat etc were neglected or explained as merely"cultural difference".The treatment of homosexuals is ignored here too as are human rights,  a free press etc.

After the Arab spring,which itself was fuelled by activism, the lunatic left began to turn back on itself, seeing the instability of government in the Middle East and it's devastating effect on millions there.Of course, wanting to have their cake and eat it too, some say Saddam,Gaddafi etc were better in retrospect and should have been left in charge.Idiotically,the most guilt ridden Western nation of all,Germany,sought to open itself to Syrian men of fighting age who deserted their families and country in order to flee what was/is a civil war of Islam ,using ancient Syria merely as a global stage.

After Brexit,then the Donald it appears to be retreating back into civil disturbance.Black Lives matter(a bogus coalition of fools) ,SSM,Gender non conformist,trannys etc.

Cultural Marxism cannot end because, just like the Military industrial complex, there is too much invested in it from our universities, media outlets and "elite" (educated classes) and our political parties on the left all over the west.The push for SSM is just another symbolic and useless attempt to destroy the social fabric of a healthy society ,but one we are strong enough to tolerate since it tends to cross the political divide in this country.

Aside from the unknown social consequences, it is a tiring drain on the taxpayer and a waste of oxygen.We have had celebrated gay men and women for decades in Australia.Some will oppose it because they have become conservative as a reaction to the mindless change and non-stop causes floating through the marxist media.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction-something the protesters are coming to realise.Some see the breakdown of the traditional family as a tactic to totally destroy any sense of nationalism, respect,and social cohesiveness,"up yours " to the mums and Dads of the post war period. Some see the safe schools program as a way to confuse our children and their future.If it were a communist tool to soften our society for invasion, it would seem to be working.Note, however, the treatment of gay people in Russia.

The constant push for change in itself is tiring many in the west and a new type of conservative has emerged to defend the status quo-which of course is not possible.

Some of these people are happy to see cultural change, some aren't, but the rampant, aggressive,bolshy,pushy,language altering, demonising nature of the protest/change movement(left in the old terms) has found an equal and opposite reaction that just want things left alone.Some people want to go through a day without having the Australia they grew up in shifted and morphed into a student union party.Some very open minded people have realised the futility and expense of change for the sake of it, of mindless internationalism, of language distortion and the constant attempts to immasculate Western society.SSM is just another one of these attempts to some.In the end it is not going to save a life, stop a suicide,or do any of the things it is alleged to do.It is another social change because there is a massive industry to benefit from it in our Schools,govt funded bodies,media ,charities and health systems.

Some can see these charades for what they are-a temper tantrum form an irresponsible generation of idiotic children that have no notion of responsibility ,national pride, respect for their elders ,traditions or themselves.

It's another excuse for big brother to step into our private world - the issue itself is nothing important to anyone.

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Biff.

 

This sounds like an analysis written from the armchair of the British Empire, a bit of Bernard Lewis thrown in, and it comes from the same view of the world as mass murders like  Churchill and Kissinger and all the other neo cons.

Apart from being factually incorrect, for instance  ..'.Finally,having eradicated hunger, water shortages, absolute poverty, and lack of education, though not entirely,  'it simply regurgitates the notion that we christian white men are the righteous because we obey god's laws...

Yours truly

Herr Dieter

[Demon trucker 1,800]

31 minutes ago, dieter said:

So you know what god wants, right? What drugs are you on???????

If you believe in god and read the bible then it is written he does not like gays, sorry but  obviously you haven't read it,  it is written when a man Lies with another man it's an abomination, like I said man changes his mind, but God does not. If you  can find any passages where he say's he does not care please find them.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, don't make me angry said:

If you believe in god and read the bible then it is written he does not like gays, sorry but  obviously you haven't read it,  it is written when a man Lies with another man it's an abomination, like I said man changes his mind, but God does not. If you  can find any passages where he say's he does not care please find them.

Are you a comedian?

[hardtack 10,612]

1 hour ago, don't make me angry said:

If you believe in god and read the bible then it is written he does not like gays, sorry but  obviously you haven't read it,  it is written when a man Lies with another man it's an abomination, like I said man changes his mind, but God does not. If you  can find any passages where he say's he does not care please find them.

Didn't the bible also say that it's ok for a man to stone his wife to death if she commits adultery; in which case it is condoning domestic violence.

Didn't the bible also say that the marriage must be fruitful; that is, must bear children... in which case infertile persons need not apply.

Didn't the bible also say that the man is head of the family and that the woman is insubordinate; in which case, women must be inferior.

Now, if you could please quote a passage, any passage from the bible that apparently does specifically state that homosexuality is an abomination and that it doesn't apply the same standards of "unholy" behaviour to straight male/female relationships (apparently sexual orientation wasn't something that was well understood in biblical times.

Another thing to consider is that the bible was written and rewritten over hundreds of years by men... not by god.  We went from creationism in the old testament to a more "realistic" view in the new testament... now why would that be?  The bible in essence is a book written using the same principles as that old game called Chinese Whispers... as the stories have been handed down they have been embellished and the end product is something that reflects man's beliefs more than it reflects the word of god (if it's to be believed such a being even exists).

 

[Jara 1,153]

2 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

If you believe in god and read the bible then it is written he does not like gays, sorry but  obviously you haven't read it,  it is written when a man Lies with another man it's an abomination, like I said man changes his mind, but God does not. If you  can find any passages where he say's he does not care please find them.

 

Thanks Don't Make Me Angry - I've always wondered this - does Jesus actually come out anywhere in the New Testament and condemn gays, or is the whole wacko homophobic thing based upon the delusions of the Bronze Age goat herders?

[Jara 1,153]

Kinda funny how people rely on the Bible for their views on homosexuality, but not for their views on, say, antibiotics, Western democracy or particle physics.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Jara said:

 

Thanks Don't Make Me Angry - I've always wondered this - does Jesus actually come out anywhere in the New Testament and condemn gays, or is the whole wacko homophobic thing based upon the delusions of the Bronze Age goat herders?

No he doesn't. But please keep in mind the 4 remaining gospels are 'concensus based' and deeply edited by church elders in the 3rd century. There were over 200 so-called gospels. Even the 4 they handed down contradict each other. It is all humbug: it is a religion made up by humanoids petrified by the unknown and their mortality. Also, most of the basic stories - example the 'virgin birth, the 3 wise men, the manger in Bethlehem are all descended from creation myths and 'god' stories prevalent in most cultures at the time. The Jesus birth story comes straight from India...For example, the date of Christmas coincides with a pagan feast day etc etc etc etc etc

[dl4e 5,851]

Threw mine in the bin. Couldn't care less.

[hardtack 10,612]

19 minutes ago, dl4e said:

Threw mine in the bin. Couldn't care less.

So?