Do you blame them for going out of their way to attack people for their views or beliefs? Isn't that exactly the thing we should be fighting against?
Getting the sh1ts doesn't allow for people to be ar$eholes.
I am sticking by not voting for all the reasons outline Paul and the moment I thought it was A) Binding B) Done without prejudice for or against peoples right to vote based on their own guidelines.
Then I would vote yes.
That's your choice, matey. As much as this whole plebiscite is a sham, it is currently the only thing we have to voice our opinions.
The point I'm making is that all of us have limits. The marriage equality lobby has let fly because they've had enough. As I said, this has been going on for decades. Sometimes you have to call out an idiotic opinion / position exactly for what it is. There is such a thing as provocation, even provocation masquerading as decades of stalling, "debates", etc.
Perhaps the marriage equality lobby has had enough of trying to be neutral, civil etc., and can't be bothered pandering to idiots any longer. This "debate", in various guises and forms, has been going on for decades. Even the most patient group or individual would be fed up by now. I don't blame them for getting the sh1ts.
I was indifferent to the whole idea, I don't see how a piece of paper matters so much that we can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on such an issue. This isn't like the right to vote!
Especially when the country has so many other more important issues that could be easily addressed with that money. ........................
It matters a lot to gay people, and rightly so. It's not just a piece of paper. The paper has legal, moral and symbolic weight attached to it. A small quote from Elton John :
"There is a world of difference between calling someone your 'partner' and calling them your 'husband'. 'Partner' is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn't come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, 'husband' does."
The money angle has nothing to do with gay people. That such a concept even needs an opinion poll is laughable. Blame the pollies.
Irrespective of why they did it, odds are the ads being pulled scored more points for the no vote than it did for the yes vote, and had it gone to air, no one would have batted an eyelid.
Other than that, I hope they get this bill passed and we can move on, because if its no this time, it will not dissapear, this debate will rage for the next 100 years until there is a yes vote irrespective of what the public want, which is why personally the people Im most angry about are our government.
Wasting billions on a vote, that is frankly not necessary. Allow them to marry and lets get on with it. Everyone moans about lack of leadership, but fork me did our government have simply run away from this contest.
Sure I respect all of that, but isn't this an example of accusing people of not being inclusive and then deliberately excluding yourself?
I don't think there is a Carlton Greek supporters club, or an Italian Carlton supporters club et Al for arguments sake.
Fwiw my argument comes from a place of acceptance not bigotry which is why I'm raising these questions.
It seems to me as though you're thinking in "either/or" rather than "both/and". A broader CFC supporter group and a LGBT supporter subgroup can happily coexist, no problems at all. You can bet London to a brick that the LGBT group would happily accept straight people. Setting up such a group does not mean they are deliberately excluding others. People are allowed to have special interests, are they not ?
My point is coming from a place where I see a Carlton lbgti supporters group created, and wonder why in 2017 is this necessary??
You wear navy and irrespective of whether you like Arthur or Martha you are a Carlton supporter and part of that group.
The point being that people are accepted for who they are, not whom they screw.
It's a social group. Necessary doesn't come into it. People intersect, interact, and bond with each other for many different reasons and interests, and this applies particularly to minority groups. On one level, I could be part of a larger group because we support the same team - I could form a subgroup within that larger group for CFC supporters who are Brad Pitt lookalikes. Why ? Because I can, and because I want to, and because others want to as well. I could be part of my local residents action group, many of whom may hate football, or be Bomber of Pies supporters, but we're united on a particular cause, yet we can still retain our previous likes, dislikes, biases etc.
We have had in the past the Wog AFL team of the century, the Italian team of the century, Greek team of the century etc. Why ? Are they not all AFL/VFL footballers ? I'd say because the Italians who support AFL want to have a little fun. I don't poo poo a particular player because they're not Italian. Many things can coexist quite happily and quite easily, even though they may seem pointless, contradictory, or counterproductive.
Anyhoo, as to the Ad itself, it's not a great ad. That Dads4kids group and the LGBT community clearly don't like each other, and the Dads4kids group made a submission to the government in 2014 which contains dubious ideas from the 1950's. Clearly a group to keep an eye on.
Wouldn't we be more inclusive of them if the lbgti community simply just stopped segregation and identity by group but rather by person?
The equality debate is one that annoys me.
People don't get equal treatment on any level and that includes gender. Not all guys are part of that distinguished boys club that get all the benefits.
We won't get equality by ensuring everyone is represented equally. We get equality by seeing people rather than what subset they belong to and give everyone equal opportunity.
I think in terms of the discussion at hand, what the LGBT community want is marriage equality, not "overall equality". Also, they weren't the ones that pulled the ad, or demanded that it be pulled. Although reading that article it seems as though that Dads4Kids and the LGBT community have issues with each other in the past. If you read the article, Dads4Kids are not as innocent as they make out.
Pulling the ad is silly and pointless. Lesbian same sex couples get to celebrate Mothers Day with all the mums, and gay male couples get to celebrate fathers say with all the dads.
Problem factor : zero Care factor : less than zero
Buddy was quicker and stronger....Jones is a big unit but Buddy is a beast and while not strong in the air he always seemed to have the drop on Jones who played from the front too often.... Jones needed help and another big player to help block Buddy....Plugger kicked ten on SOS...so to me its all part of Jones learning experience and a champ like Buddy is going to have those days and Jones did his best...Buddy would have kicked 15 on anyone else...
I guess so. Unfortunately the right strategy doesn't always lead to the desired outcome. I reckon if Jones played from behind Buddy could have kicked 15.
No great shame having your colours lowered by Franklin having a day out, with no support.
The thing that has me wondering is what were the coaching group telling Jones, and others, as the night progressed...and was he/they following their advice/ instructions.
Jones strikes me as someone who is very coachable - he seems like the type to follow orders and instructions.
At any rate, I'd like to see some footage of Franklin's 10 goals - my memory of watching the game is that Jones was close to him for most of them, but I could be wrong.
I'm not going to blame him because it takes a team to defend and sheer weight of numbers would have made it extremely tough, but for a bloke minding buddy he spent a lot of time nowhere near him.
That being said he joins a long list of defenders that buddy has pulled the pants down of.
Jones played a few meters in front of Buddy firstly to give himself first chance to mark the ball, and secondly to block Buddy's run, and thirdly to minimize the chance of giving away a free by attempting to spoil over the shoulder, push in the back etc. One problem that emerges from this is that Jones was constantly looking around to see where Buddy was. Between ball watching, Buddy watching etc., in combination with glut of supply that Buddy received, he was on a hiding to nothing. I doubt Rance would've done better under the circumstances.
I think the strategy was sound enough. If I were a defender, I would much prefer playing in front of Buddy.
