What a bunch of dills. Now most likely Lambie gone. The One Nation replacement for Roberts is no longer representing One Nation.
Not only are most self serving, but they are daft. Bad politicians playing bad politics. SSM survey result in on Wednesday and the 'No' side are looking at some amazing discrimination clauses should that side not be the popular choice.
It would be nice to have a group of people that are governing Australia for Australia.
Bratblue - State politicians aren't covered by this, it is only Federal.
While everything should have been checked and crossed off, some of dual citizenships seem quite obscure. It will be interesting to see what becomes of those who have citizenship of a country which can't be renounced (there are a few, can't recall them).
I have some (very limited) sympathy for a couple of the obscure ones - I wonder what would happen if a detailed check was made over the last 30 years, how many invalidly elected parliamentarians there have been.
This is proving why politicians are regarded as they are - it would be easy to get someone to check each pollie's background to determine if they are in the clear or doubtful and to refer doubtful ones. How is it there two more were "outed" over the last week when they knew what was going on? How is it that there seems to be genuine queries over a few more.
Not hard. Sort it out.
Having an election would probably be the worst thing possible, as no one would vote for the big parties. This would increase the loonies even further....
I expect the club to: - show and practise good governance off field - improve its financial position - improve its on field prospects through being able to score more. Improvement last year came through how many games we were in front in the last quarter. Next year, we will need to win a few more of those
As an aside, interesting that Bulldogs hired the St Kilda guy that a few mentioned as CEO. Also interesting that all is quiet on our recruitment of a CEO. While Lethlean may be a foregone conclusion at least they are holding off announcing it to give the impression of time going into the recruitment process...
Broncos for me, because I lived in Colorado for 6 months when I was 11 (over 30 yrs ago). They were bad then, but not as bad as the Boulder College team (where we were living). I did get to see the college win their first game for a few seasons when I was there, however.
I "follow" it in the sense of occasionally looking at fixtures and results - don't know any of the players. Look at it more often if they are going well...
The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.
Yet nothing happens about Rudds God son who got beaten up.
Agree with GIC, which is what Thry is talking about - ideology. The other aspects that I get are people being scared of change and not knowing if there will be other consequences that are not relevant to the actual debate eg Safe Schools arguments (ps Thanks Bernardi for your comments that lead to a magnificant fundraising effort)
Yes, Paul - agree and that to me is where some of the 'argument' is being lost because passages about homosexuality in the Bible are about that and not marriage.
Interesting that there are some Biblical scholars that are talking about the society then no having the sophistication to know about LGBQTI, which makes it much harder to understand when trying to put it in today's context.
I agree Thry - ideology is the driving force, which is not easily changed. I have had some quite long conversations with some no voters, talking about homosexuality as being immoral. These people are otherwise very good, rational thinkers, who i respect.
Just on the bible not being meant to be read so literally, I think you'd have to tell that to the Atheists first before convincing most Christians.
Irrespective of that, hear are some quotes from the bible:
Leviticus 18 & 20
Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:
Thry, while I am certainly not an expert on scripture, my concerns with these two passages is that they are talking about male homosexuality be detestable and punishable by death. They don't talk about marriage. Chapter 18 talks about a whole heap of people that a married male shouldn't bonk (most of who we as a society agree with). It also doesn't talk about female homosexuality. It does however, seem to accept that your father and mother might have daughters to different partners (18:6-10) - part of the Robyn Whitakers article that Paulp references. There is an abundance of Christians espousing "Yes"
I haven't looked closely into what the Bible says about marriage, which this is all about.
For me, similar to you, there are ultimately two commandments of Jesus - Love me with all your heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. This is far more important, then a few verses here and there as they aren't open to nearly as much interpretation and updating for the times.
I like what they have said, too. There are many that are looking at organisations for their stance, however, if you are an employee it can cause a disconnect if you don't agree with your employer's stance. I think that they have strongly said where they stand on the issue, however, put no pressure on anyone in the club for the way they may vote.
Looking at the CFC facebook page, there are many that are disappointed with the statement. The Yes' obviously think that it isn't strong enough and the No's may think that it doesn't really support their view.
There seems to be a bell curve: - at both ends (say 2% each) there is the extreme position of both sides. These people are deep rooted, extremely strong in their conviction and will respond with personal abuse, not necessarily argument about their side - next inside (say 10% each) are those that are passionate about their side of the debate and will argue the debate fairly and decently, however, they will not change their mind
These two groups would be most likely to return the survey
- next is another 10% (each) who pretty well have their minds made up, but don't engage in the debate and are unlikely to change their mind - The final 56% don't really care, and don't really see the impact, but are more likely to "not see the harm (if there is any)" that the no side will argue. They are also more unlikey to be bothered to return their survey.
Some in these groups would also like to know what they are responding to - eg is there an impact on free speech, "freedom of religion" , MIOs questions and maybe a few of the fringe arguments that aren't directly related to the survey ie what is the final legislation going to look like
The last two groups are obviously a huge number of people who need to be convinced by the first two groups to return the survey. This is the pure danger of the survey.
What are the results that need to occur for parliament to go with the wishes of the survey? 55/45, 65/35? Who knows. We don't.
There are no winners in the short term - the side that gets their way will be intolerable with their vitriol of "victory". Unfortunately as a country we don't do graceful winning or losing very well.
Personally, I am getting splinters. The conservative side of me wants to no side to come out with something more convincing than they have. The progressive side of me wants to believe that their argument is purely about SSM with no further agenda not being espoused and needs some convincing that this is the case. Until I get the reassurance from either side and am able to support that with conviction, I won't return the form.
Paulp - there are some legal differences between de facto and married - some things as a couple are much easier as married. You can do this cheaply at the registry office without having to buy your mates a meal and drinks...
I have only had conversations with the more fundamental Christians about this. They are definitely on the no side. The Pentecostal/fundamental church is pretty big (eg some get 8k plus through their doors on a weekend) My facebook feeds suggests that the more progressive Christians will vote yes. Pretty much all non-church people my age seem to be yes.
My gut feeling is that the vote will be close. The conservative congregations will have this thrown at them every week, the yes side doesn't quite have the same captive audience.
What disappoints me is that that when a no vote is suggested, suddenly that person is a bigot, homophobic and full of hate. They generally aren't, they just don't see marriage as a same sex thing, or see homosexuality as a moral issue, which they are against. Surely their view is just as valid as any other.
I also detest how some of the 'no' vote attacks advocates of SSM in a personal and derogatory way.
I find it odd that the many parts of the church argues for a whole range exemptions from discrimination, which seems to be to go totally against Jesus' teaching.
It would be interesting to know how many surveys were sent back before any real campaigning started. The whole survey is resulting in horrible division within the country and we would have been much better off if the politicians had the guts to make a decision. Another thing we can blame Howard and his generally bad government for (although the public discourse when he changed the marriage act was basically non-existent from memory). One day it would be great if politicians governed for the country, not their party!
It's amazing the time and effort you're willing to put in when you enjoy doing something - well done, Crash, I enjoy your weekly summaries.
It is interesting that the top 5 have all bar one BOG for the season. It is also interesting that two players that cause a bit of angst on this site - Murphy and Gibbs polled consistently well. We must have got some recruiting right considering Murph, Kreuz and Gibbs were top draft picks and those who voted on this site had them all in our top 4.
Depending which side of the fence you sit on, you call this a success, or it points to the absolute failure if Murph and Gibbs are top 4. Personally, I think it is a success and not their fault that they have been at the club that has been so poor at player development (IIRC Gibbs was put into the leadership in his debut season - crazy)
I, like many others, hate the tone of this debate from the extremes. The moderate middle has been OK.
The point to me that stands out like a sore thumb is that a de facto same sex couple doesn't have the same rights as m/f de facto couple. This is a disgrace and needs urgent fixing.
I think as others have pointed out, there are legal differences (eg next of kin) that need proof in a de facto relationship that are more onerous than a marriage. These can make sense ie a marriage certificate can be shown, but a de facto has to find other ways of proving their commitment towards each other.
I am not sure if it is a simple as saying that the only consequence of allowing same sex marriage is that same sex attracted can get married. As (particularly) religious protections need to be put in place, I am curious as to what other 'protections' might need to exist.
Of the same sex couples that I know, I would be rapt to know that they could get married - it is what they desperately want. The Yes camp needs to campaign very carefully and not aggressively to convince Australia that it is the right thing to do. As the No camp is status quo, it is easier for them as they cater for those that are resistant to change.
