User talk:Lefty on campus

This page is reserved for respectful discussion, not POV right biased attacks to push a conservative agenda.

Peter Costello

• Edited: I odn't allow homophobic right-wing comments on my talk page, or allow peple to justify forced religious beliefs and discrimination, or heteros claiming to know what gays want.

I take it that you are not a lawyer, or law student. Because if you were, you would know that you are wrong here ((re: Uh, only Tasmania recognises gay couples, Aus law does little in the way of protection for gays, & gays still can't even donate blood in Australia. Adding the super claim= pathetic POV posturing) . Xtra 07:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --Please don't vandalise my talk page, that is very uncouth

Please don't edit the Costello page, it is NPOV: the article states that Costello believed marriage should be opposite sex couples only and that should be reflected in the same vein. Not my fault you don't like it.

Gays are banned from giving blood (do your research) and lack civil partnership laws across the state, but I would check that superiority over a law degree at the door, because you give off a bias on an apparent NPOV site. Lefty on campus 07:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --

You are wrong. Tasmania was the LAST state to get rid of a ban on homosexuality, and that was only after a High Court challange. I am entitled to edit any page on wikipedia that I like and it is not for you to tell me what I am not alowed to edit. The "super claim" as you put it is absolutely true and shows that Costello is not anti-gay, as you were suggesting. Xtra 08:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Xtra, read what I write, not the agenda you have playing out in your head. For a soon-to-be lawyer you don't really respond to what people write very carefully. Shame. I'm referring to recognising GAY COUPLES IN A LEGAL sense, ie CIVIL MARRIAGE (everyone in Australia knows that private consensual sex between gays was banned in Tas. Wow, choking on your hubris, much?) Tasmania legalised same-sex civil unions in 04 (the only state, although similar ACT legislation comes into effect in a few days). Wow, for a law student you don't really know the law very well! Need a towel for that egg covering your face? Guess they don't teach you that well at uni, or you skipped that week's readings. Still no response to the gay blood donor ban guess you don't want fag blood in your veins. Tisk. Oh, and you can make any POV edit, or vandalise my page with your homophobic right-wing comments all you want. I can't stop you, can I? Lefty on campus 11:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --.

Sorry. I took "recognise" to mean lawful. However, I stand by what I said about them being recognised. You dont need to have marriage to be recognised and marriage has never been a homosexual thing in the last X thousand years of homosexual history. Xtra 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Who else would know gays' innermost desires and aspirations than a Liberal heterosexual christian? If gays didn't want the right to be equal under the law, why would they put all of their efforts into securing equality? But you obviously, in all your hubris, know the plight of gays, and should be able to dictate what they can and can't have in life and in law. Good to know we have another lawyer in the making willing to sacrifice equality for their own conservative agenda. It's about RECOGNITION. We need legal recognition to prove that we exist, but nothing in law does that - anything less than marriage is just that - a cop out. You can wave your tacked on benefits all you want, but anything less than marriage is an indication that gays are lesser people than heterosexuals and don't deserve all the rights and priveliges of heterosexuals. I know enough about the rule of law to know discrimination isn't part of it. You aren't normal therefore you don't deserve the rights that normals enjoy. Something I think you obviously believe in. Shame.

Let me ask you this: A gay couple injured in a car accident. Both have the same rare blood type. One is in desperate need of a transfusion, there is no supply at the hospital, however, the other partner cannot offer his blood because of the gay donor ban. The only possibility is DEATH. Still feel that recognition isn't necessary? That discrimination doesn't hurt? Let me ask you this: there is equal protection for defacto heterosexual couples, so why do heteros ned to get married? Unless they want it to be recognised by law. But you wouldn't bring religion into this discussion would you? Denying others the right to marry because of your religion? Even you must know that you can't force people to observe a religion if they don't want to. One of a few express rights in the constitution if my recollection serves me correctly. Dont' you just love electives? No gay marriages because the new testament says so. Ergo, you can't get married! Well, that would be plain repugnant, wouldn't it? Unconstitutional is another word. Well, we'll just brush past that and be thankful gays are imprisoned for their "lifestyle."

Proudly, Lefty on campus 12:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --.

I notice on your user page you write I am intolerant of the political right.. I am tolerant of all opinions, but I dislike people who play with the truth. Xtra 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean like ignoring what I wrote above to instead attack my beliefs? Was what I said above wrong, or just so unpleasant to deal with you can offer no reasonable justification? I am intolerant of the political right because they limit options and choice. You don't have to like gays or be gay, but what possible right do conservatives have to dictate what gays can and can't do? Regardless, ignore my post above as you have already. I guess the truth hurts sometimes. Lefty on campus 12:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --.

Silence. Guess you can't offer any reasonable justification for homophobic discrimination. Good luck on the law thing, I'd keep my day job if I were you, seriously. Lefty on campus 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --.

Why did you change Xtra's comment from

I notice on your user page you write I am intolerant of the political right.. I am tolerant of all opinions, but I dislike people who play with the truth. Xtra 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

to

I notice on your user page you write Xtra is a homophobic right-wing person who believes every Australian should follow his bible. Xtra 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(I reverted it back because changing people's comments without saying so is frowned upon) Thanks, Andjam 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert it back to my changes, please don't edit it. Xtra says quite clearly on his beliefs page that we all must follow his bible, so I'll link to that. Don't take my word for it. What surprises me more is how you came by this page, and so care what I write about Xtra? Very suspiscious. -- Lefty on campus 02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

I totally object to you amending any comment I have made. You may delete things you don't like if you wish, however you may not amend my words to make it look like I habve said something that I clearly have not. If you do I will apply to have you blocked. Also, your language apears to be verry similar to someone who has been vandalising my userpage. Do you have any comment on that? Xtra 02:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Read above rules, no comments by homophobes on this page. It's a tolerant place for all individuals regardless of beliefs or orientation. Please respect the rules.

It's sad day when homophobic comments are tolerated, but suddenly I'm the bad guy for writing about it. The post stays. If you don't like it, there are avenues you can follow if you feel you have been wronged (democracy is nice, isn't it?), that is assuming you have a problem with free political communication. You write "you may delete my comments" yet I know you have reposted delted comments of yours on a few pages. But, if trying to win petty arguments on wikipedia makes you feel good about yourself (or puts a law degree to use) be my guest. Lefty on campus 02:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.

I am not a sockpuppet of anyone and I object to your other assertions. Xtra 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You state on your beliefs page that we all must follow your bible's definition of marriage. Howard has gone on to say that because this is a "judeo-christian" country, gays need not apply for marriage. It's a little tough to explain what your religion has to do with nayone other than yourself.

I created Gay rights in Australia and had it on my watchlist, so I found out about you when you edited the article. Would you like to withdraw your accusation of me being a homophobe? Andjam 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. -- 02:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Could you also withdraw What surprises me more is how you came by this page, and so care what I write about Xtra? Very suspiscious.? Also, can you provide a link to his beliefs page? Thanks Andjam 02:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (Re-inserted by Andjam 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Were you the one who was continually vandalising my userpage? Yes or no? Xtra 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I've only "spoken" with you a few times online, and even then I can't stand you, why would I want to have anything more to do with you? If you check the logs, (and I'm sure you can check or know someone who can) it's not me. The only vandal here seems to be you editing my talk page when you know I don't like you. I think this ends any further communication, wouldn't you agree? -- Lefty on campus 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

and once again I ask nicely if you can please not fill this page with your right wing agenda. Respect the rules outlined above. -- Lefty on campus 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

That was me, problems staying logged in in firefox. Lefty on campus 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Was that an admission that you vandalised my userpage? Xtra 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have a SERIOUS problem reading what I write. To reiterate as I said above If you check the logs, (and I'm sure you can check or know someone who can) it's not me. The only vandal here seems to be you editing my talk page when you know I don't like you. The "admission" I made was to not signing the two comments above. But I suspect you knew that, and are not above childish games. Are you sure you're a lawyer, if you are you may want to try a higher level of maturity. Take some skills seminars at the Melb uni learning centre. Please take this as a not-so-subtle hint to leave me alone. I wonder if I can block some vandals from posting on my talk page? Help anyone? 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.

You were logged in when writing those comments, you just forgot to sign (see your page history), which created the ambiguity. Xtra 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That ends any business you may have here. You obviusly realise I'm a gay man (boo, hiss!), and chatting with you could be seen as an act of betrayal to my abomination, I mean, "kind". Lefty on campus 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC) --.

Andjam, Xtra has been told not to post on my talk page, accuses me of vandalism (where did that come from, and reverts my clearly NPOV edits as POV to suit his POV. Now he posts on my talk page with childish claims like I admitted vandalism, and you post on his page accusing ME of being a sock puppet. If anything I am defending my right to edit, but obviously you two like to gossip. Could both your actions be considered harrassment? -- Lefty on campus 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC).