Skip to main content

In The News

How the five wealthiest Gulf Nations have so far refused to take a single Syrian refugee

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...used-single-Syrian-refugee.html#ixzz3l8Bxgo00


More than four million Syrians have been forced to escape the never-ending civil war ravaging their country and the barbaric terror group carving a bloody trail across the Middle East.

The vast majority live in overcrowded refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq - all under threat from ISIS - and record numbers are making the perilously long journey to Europe.

Yet, as debate rages between politicians in Europe over how many they should take, nearby super-wealthy Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have refused to offer sanctuary to a single Syrian refugee.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Ain't that the truth, ain't that the truth.

Instead it's Judeo Christian countries who have to put up with the progeny of these so-called 'asylum seekers' potentially sacrificing themselves through martyrdom when they grow up to slain the kafir and infidels who live among them. *smfh*
 
The arti
reepbot said:
http://m.theage.com.au/act-news/sch...ee-principal-disciplined-20150908-gjhhqa.html

I hope she gets fired.

14
Click to expand...

The article says she has been sacked.

The other issue of course is - Why and how did such a disruptive student come to be in mainstream classes? Increasingly kids with all sorts of disabilities are being dumped into normal classes and teachers are simply supposed to deal with it somehow simply because it's easier for the top level to ignore the problem and because it's cheaper for the government.

I for one have never been trained to deal with students that have ADHD, ODD ( I have a kid who us both in one of my classes this year and two others in the same class that are ADD...) or Autism, beyond some cursory PD on a pupil free day on occasion. Anything I know is because I've dealt with it myself on a daily basis in class by sheer trial and error. Yet if I make an error and it all goes south, who gets the blame? Me of course....
 
For all intents and purposes those in gay relationships have all the same rights (along the negatives that come with it :p) of de facto and hetero married couples, it's just the word 'marriage' that's the sticking point.

I've heard that in several Latin American countries that legalised gay marriage and how they've gone about it is that the word 'marriage' isn't recognised in a legal sense (just for religious ceremonies) but the word 'union' (or something similar) is used instead for it to be officially recognised by the government (official registry forms, etc..). That's a fair compromise I would've thought.

Whether people like it or not 'marriage' has strong religious connotations and it's probably a good idea and compromise to come with an alternative word for unions between individuals when it comes to matters related to the State.
 
Last edited:
Song, WTF? I have no idea what you're babbling on about.

So I interpret your stance to mean that you want for gays to be able to get married even by religious institutions and if they refuse than they should charged with discrimination or some such. Personally I think that's unnecessary and overly spiteful but whatever tickles your fancy I guess.

I also take it that you don't believe gay marriage exists in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, etc... either because they word union (or an equivalent) used for BOTH STRAIGHT and GAY couples wanting their relationship to be recognised in the eyes of the law. Whilst the word marriage is strictly for religious institutions. Like I said I think that's a far compromise.
 
Because I've heard your views on it, you comment like everytime and it's the same stuff, no point talking about with you because we won't reach a mutual goal about it.
 
Well FWIW my original post was just a general comment on the issue directed at no one in particular which was merely pointing out an alternative compromise that other countries around the world have successfully adopted that has more or less worked. *shrugs*
 
It was more to do with Jenner's hypocrisy than anything else.
But churches do not have ownership of marriage, it existed before religion ever existed.
 
Yeah I like to go slightly off tangent some times. :shamefully:

Religions don't own the practice of publicly announcing relationships between 2 people, that's true. That's why some countries have completely separated religious institutions and related terminology from what makes a relationship legally recognised by the government and made them 2 different unrelated things.

Which to me sounds so elegant and simple that it's staggering that that approach hasn't been adopted here in Australia.
 
I do agree with doing away marriage though its sort of an outdated concept, we need a modern commitment term.
Marriage has recently had a religious twist but previous to that it was nothing to do with love or personal future, it was about securing status and joining two families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top