Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 200671 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 30 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #195 –
Hopefully the club's position on SSM will not jeopardize our ability to attract players in the forthcoming trade period.  ::)
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #196 –
Pedantic perhaps, but it's not a plebiscite.  The Government's plebiscite bill was rejected in the Senate.

The exercise underway now is an $122M opinion poll conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #197 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Pedantic perhaps, but it's not a plebiscite.  The Government's plebiscite bill was rejected in the Senate.

The exercise underway now is an $122M opinion poll conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I changed the name (Father's day was a while ago now) to something short so it fit in the scroller.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #198 –
It's a disgrace. What a massive waste of money.

Politicians get voted in to make decisions....this one should be a no brainer.

The religious right in the Libs must have some very embarrassing photos of Malcolm!

And I'm voting yes.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #199 –
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-would-prevent-3000-teen-suicide-attempts-a-year-say-health-groups-20170920-gyl2hf.html

Whatever the "bullying left" does, they must not be seen to be giving the no voters a bit of a nudge,  a few gentle words of encouragement, to get them to think that a yes vote may actually make a meaningful difference to young people's lives. No siree, we must just sit back, and let the tragedy unfold before our very eyes. Because we mustn't tell anyone that they may actually be wrong, or making a very poor judgment. Tut, tut. We don't want to upset anyone, or be perceived as patronizing, or god forbid, paternalistic. It's all about my feelings, my opinions, my rights.

As I have learned many times over the journey, sometimes my feelings, opinions and beliefs may actually be wrong, or may have been right at one time, but not in the present.
 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #200 –
What was wrong with Carlton's statement?

Our club's position is the same as the AFL's except we're not forcing it on anyone.

Somehow it is being twisted into Carlton doesn't support equality.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #201 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
What was wrong with Carlton's statement?

Our club's position is the same as the AFL's except we're not forcing it on anyone.

Somehow it is being twisted into Carlton doesn't support equality.

The Judge will be sentenced to trial by the ducking stool!
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #202 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
What was wrong with Carlton's statement?

Our club's position is the same as the AFL's except we're not forcing it on anyone.

Somehow it is being twisted into Carlton doesn't support equality.
To be honest, there is NOTHING wrong with Carlton's statement. We simply are NOT pushing someone else's bandwagon, but giving our people the choice they should have.
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #203 –
Quote from: crashlander – on
To be honest, there is NOTHING wrong with Carlton's statement. We simply are NOT pushing someone else's bandwagon, but giving our people the choice they should have.

The problem is we are a football club, no one is looking for us to help guide them in their decision making and neither should they. What is the point of football club coming out and saying make up your own mind? it would have been better to either come out in favour or say nothing at all.

It was a wierd statement.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #204 –
While it is ok to vote no, it is also ok to vote yes.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #205 –
I lean towards the "yes" side of things, but some things about this debate really bother me.
[1] The "No" campaign hasn't argued particularly well as yet. Basically I assume it is because most of their arguments are religious in nature and not something that can be debated. Religion depends on belief and faith, neither of which come across to other parties well in debates.
[2] The "Yes" campaign has really put me off side with their arrogance and attitude that if you are not on their side then you are a Nazi or worse. One of the reasons why I wanted to have a plebiscite is that I want MY say. I do not want to be represented my some idiot politician who shares few if any of my values. I strongly believe that everyone has a right to have their own opinions, not those simply one put on us from outside. (I don't believe that just because a person has an opinion, that everyone on Earth has to know about it. I wouldn't be giving ANY air time on radio or TV for extremists on any side.)
[3] I don't have a problem with gay people being married, nor on their getting the lefal rights and obligations that go with it. However, once you start changing something as basic as marriage has been for us, where do you stop?
At the moment gays and lesbians want to be treated equally. Fair enough. What about the next group who feel their potential life styles are being descriminated against? What if 3 people want to get married? After all, they may love each other deeply and want to be together. What about a polygamous Muslim or Mormon? After all, polygamy is actually fairly common in the bible. What about goup marriages? Line Marriages?
All of these are ways of being human and are not evil in themselves.
What about marriages with time limits? After all, at the moment the only type of marriage is "until death do us part". Does it have to be, especially as humans begin to live longer. Can a traditional marriage survive for a century or more? That sort of thing is on the horizon. Biotechnology will start increasing human life spans very soon. Perhaps even for some people alive now.

It is not likely tht any of these groups are going to agitate any time soon for 'marriage equality': not enough of people follow these life styles at this time as they are still legally problematical and culturally offensive to many. However, this may not be the case forever. Technology is changing the human species and may change things like marriage in the future. However, will they acheive legal equality? Should they? Once the 'standard' form of marriage is not the only allowable one, can we argue against other options reasonably? I don't think so. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

At its most basic level marriage was invented to produce and bring up children - one of the most important biological directives that most humans feel. Monogamy appears to be the most natural form of marriage in human history: it fits the fact that there is not a huge physical difference between males and females compared to our closest relatives and the difference instrength is becoming less important due to our mastery of technology. It also fits that there are approximately equal numbers of males and females, even barring the infanticde and gender selection that takes place in some countries. It even fits that human sperm produces gametes about 50:50.
Humans have trialled other forms of marriage over the centuries. Some human societies, generally matriarchies in the far past, did not have marriage, but brought up children communally among the females. Guys had little influence outside times of hunting or war. But most societies have trended towards monogamy, as it does not leave people without potential partners.

Where does this leave gay people? Good question. Gay couple do not tend to produce children of their own, although technology may change that in the next couple of centuries, especialy if cloning becomes legal.
However, over human history, between 3 and 5 % of humans have been gay. There must be something that allows this trait to continue. In the past many gay people still had hetero relationships, even if they were not their primary choice. These relationships produced offspring, particularly in the higher classes. However, certainly not at the rate of homosexuality in te community. Gay people did not necessarily have gay offspring. In fact, their children appear to be gay at about the same rate as the general population.
Some societies have had considerable gay content: Think of the Sacred Bands or the Spartans and their sex for pleasure is mostly homosexual. A man could not marry until he had fought in battle. Then he had sex with his wife only to produce children.
Thankfully we don't have societies like the Spartans today. But that is another matter. The Spartans were not inherantly evil just because they promoted being gay (they had other issues, but that is another tale).
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #206 –
I'm not sure that you can discriminate against one particular group because it may or may not open a Pandora's box for other groups. I'm no historian, but the evils that would supposedly be created by ssm have not come to pass. According to David Kirby, brother of Justice Kirby, ssm marriage is now legal in 24 countries, and no signs of animals or anything else. Similarly, the supposed evils that would occur because of improving the plight of women or Aboriginal people also never materialized. 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-life-my-brother-never-had-because-he-was-gay-why-a-yes-vote-matters-20170919-gyk7e9.html

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #207 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-would-prevent-3000-teen-suicide-attempts-a-year-say-health-groups-20170920-gyl2hf.html

Whatever the "bullying left" does, they must not be seen to be giving the no voters a bit of a nudge,  a few gentle words of encouragement, to get them to think that a yes vote may actually make a meaningful difference to young people's lives. No siree, we must just sit back, and let the tragedy unfold before our very eyes. Because we mustn't tell anyone that they may actually be wrong, or making a very poor judgment. Tut, tut. We don't want to upset anyone, or be perceived as patronizing, or god forbid, paternalistic. It's all about my feelings, my opinions, my rights.

As I have learned many times over the journey, sometimes my feelings, opinions and beliefs may actually be wrong, or may have been right at one time, but not in the present.

Most of those teen suicides are caused by bullying, are you claiming it's only homophobic teenagers that bully?

How does a marriage certificate stop that, kids don't give a stuff about marriage it's a dying institution?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #208 –
Quote from: LP – on
Most of those teen suicides are caused by bullying!

How does a marriage certificate stop that, kids don't give a stuff about marriage it's a dying institution?

It's a public acknowledgement that it's ok to be gay and married. The research quoted in the article makes that quite clear.

Is marriage a dying institution ? I'm not sure that it is, but I have no figures ready to hand.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #209 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
It's a public acknowledgement that it's ok to be gay and married. The research quoted in the article makes that quite clear.

Is marriage a dying institution ? I'm not sure that it is, but I have no figures ready to hand.

The reports extrapolates figures from the USA and assumes they apply unequivocally here. Where is the bridge between cause and effect for this argument that two unrelated events have a connection? The report seems to be trying to make an association without provide the causative links.

Reminds me of America pointing the finger at Australia and calling us racist!

By the way, I have no issue with the assertion that the SSM vote causes a problem, that is what the conservatives want and why the socialists opposed it!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"