[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[get me outta here]

Take your important points and wonderig how the the Columbians treat gays? Is it anything like say the Indonesians and some other 1st/ 2nd / 3rd countries? Some countries - maybe the 1 st world ones need to set an example of human rights for gays and, many have, just not Australia.

Sorry guys and gals and gays, but standing on the poutside looking in - this whole issue is so First World. It does gain media time in non-First World countries too, like my own Colombia, but that is just a distraction tool the government uses to stop focus on more important things.

Like having enough to eat, a medical system, and discouraging people to kill you.

 

[dajop]

Take your important points and wonderig how the the Columbians treat gays? I

The government seems to treat the gay community quite well, according to wikipedia:

On 28 April 2016, the Constitutional Court legalized same-sex marriage.

 

[Pushka]

No smiley face emoji or lol in sight. Sorry I misinterpreted your persistence in asking why I liked something. As your attempt at humour. For that I apologise

Fair 'enuf. (I thought I only queried the 'like' once though but it was requoted a few times). In future I'll do more of these (I mostly post on the app so not sure if these come up properly on the desktop version)

 

[whatmeworry]

Welcome to Margaret Court Arena.

 

[burmans]

Welcome to Margaret Court Arena.

Point well made.

 

[theblank]

Perhaps people with such strong religious beliefs should declare this and stop gay lifesavers when their kid is drowning? Or stop the gay paramedic from treating your loved one after a car accident? or stop caring for your elderly parent in a nursing home?

Why? Perhaps also then Atheist should refused to be treated by a theistic doctor, or refuse a medical treatment invented by a christian of all people!

Strange how how these religious types are happy to take everything when they need it, but not budge on an issue that doesn't even affect them? I don't see how the religious folk can have it both ways?

Jesus Christ didnt tolerate religious people, and they crucified him for it. I don't think much of religious people either.

No one is saying Ms Court can't have her views. But to make them public, when she knows she is in a position of influence,

She doesnt seem to have been able to do much influence. Yet you dont seem to be so critical of Alan Joyce using his position of influence (1000x more) at Qantas for forcing his 'religion' on the people of Australia, and for lobbying other companies to join with him or be left out in the cold.

The 'gay lobby' was against the plebiscite because past history in other countries (e.g. Ireland?) flushed out a lot of toxic behaviour and vitriol towards homosexuals by those who were vehemently opposed.

The gay lobby is against the plebiscite because they know it will lose, and because they want to keep the toxic behaviour and vitriole as their own tactic, and they have been using it so well thus far.

 

[theblank]

Take your important points and wonderig how the the Columbians treat gays? Is it anything like say the Indonesians and some other 1st/ 2nd / 3rd countries? Some countries - maybe the 1 st world ones need to set an example of human rights for gays and, many have, just not Australia.

You may be confusing Indonesia a country of 250 million people, with Aceh, a province of Indonesia of 5 million people, which is under Sharia law, and has recently subjected two gay men to public caning according to the media. Though they have caned many more young women (and men) for infidelity, so its really hard to use Indonesia or Aceh as an example of how gays are treated under their law.

A really good example is to bring up how United Arab Emirites treats gays, in that country homosexuality is a crime. Yet Alan Joyce doesn't seem to have a problem doing business with Emirates airlines, who clearly wont be signing on to his personal project. Margaret Court has invited Alan Joyce for a chat, but not in the Qantas lounge. Perhaps the Emirates lounge will be available.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why? Perhaps also then Atheist should refused to be treated by a theistic doctor, or refuse a medical treatment invented by a christian of all people!

...

She doesnt seem to have been able to do much influence. Yet you dont seem to be so critical of Alan Joyce using his position of influence (1000x more) at Qantas for forcing his 'religion' on the people of Australia, and for lobbying other companies to join with him or be left out in the cold.

The first example (medical treatment) doesn't concern issues of equality.

AJ is doing something to effect positive change, equality. Apples and oranges to Ms Court who is taking a negative stance, and knows - or should know - the detrimental effect this can have on young members of the LGBT community.

 

[Pushka]

<snip>

The gay lobby is against the plebiscite because they know it will lose, and because they want to keep the toxic behaviour and vitriole as their own tactic, and they have been using it so well thus far.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back that. So please don't confuse your desires/wishes with reality. And the reality is that we simply don't know the outcome if it were to be held. Just like Brexit and Trump.

 

[get me outta here]

I was not confused, but was thinking more of this sort of thing from the New York Times 17 May, so I consider it a good example contrary to your statement:

JAKARTA, Indonesia — The police in Indonesia have arrested 141 men at a sauna in the capital on suspicion of having a gay sex party, the latest crackdown on homosexuality in the country.

You may be confusing Indonesia a country of 250 million people, with Aceh, a province of Indonesia of 5 million people, which is under Sharia law, and has recently subjected two gay men to public caning according to the media. Though they have caned many more young women (and men) for infidelity, so its really hard to use Indonesia or Aceh as an example of how gays are treated under their law.

 

[theblank]

You have no evidence whatsoever to back that.

Yes we do, the last election was a vote for Gay marriage and it lost.

The rainbow lobby keep telling us the Australian public overwhelmingly want SSM, therefore they really had a golden opportunity to knock all those pesky christians off their soapboxes, legislate them into obscurity, surely that would have been priceless? They have blown this opportunity for now - and for ever unless they change their mind and pressure Labor into allowing the plebiscite.

There is only one good reason for the plebiscite to be avoided, and that's because they know it will fail and then would be political suicide for any Govt to enact it for a very long time. The excuses they proffer are pathetically weak. If the plebsicite was allowed to proceed it would have been done and dusted by now, and (according to them) they would all be married and living happily ever after, and no more mental problems.

AJ is doing something to effect positive change, equality.

According to AJ he is, but it is his own personal and subjective opinion that what he is doing is positive. There is no objective yardstick for which you could measure this 'positivety'

Apples and oranges to Ms Court who is taking a negative stance, and knows - or should know - the detrimental effect this can have on young members of the LGBT community.

Perhaps Bill Shorten et al should be more concerned about this detrimental effect he is causing all these members, because if it wasnt for him SSM would have been legalised by now! Have you taken this up with him?

 

[Pushka]

Silly me. I thought the election was to determine whether Labor or Coalition formed Government. Pretty sure that marriage equality wasn't that much on people's radar in deciding that. While people have a position yay or nay I'd be confident that the majority wouldn't vote according to that position. Because neither Govt has really been interested in taking it onboard as a direct policy.

There's only been one issue that would sway me to vote in a particular manner and that is the removal of conscription - waaay back. In all other elections it's about performance with regards to managing the economy and general social policy and more broader considerations.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

According to AJ he is, but it is his own personal and subjective opinion that what he is doing is positive. There is no objective yardstick for which you could measure this 'positivety'

There is an objective yardstick: equality. That everyone is treated equally. There will be some people that do not agree the principle, but whether or not we have equality is still objective.

 

[ermen]

There is an objective yardstick: equality. That everyone is treated equally. There will be some people that do not agree the principle, but whether or not we have equality is still objective.

What is equality?
Where everyone can do what they want, when they want, as when they see fit?

Anway go run that argument that "equality" is the underlying argument and basis for social policy, you will come up with many weird and unpalatable (though logical) conclusions...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What is equality?
Where everyone can do what they want, when they want, as when they see fit?

No. In this particular discussion it means that gay people can do the same thing as straight people. No more, no less.

 

[dajop]

No. In this particular discussion it means that gay people can do the same thing as straight people. No more, no less.

The counter view is that if you subscribe to the theory that being gay is a choice, therefore as individuals we all have the same rights - if we choose to exercise them by going down a certain path - of living a straight life.

Not that I subscribe to that theory, for me being attracted to other males was something that just always was. ( Although I will concede there I did have a choice - living life honestly and in tune with biological urges - or living a lie).

 

[Deleted member]

There is an objective yardstick: equality. That everyone is treated equally. There will be some people that do not agree the principle, but whether or not we have equality is still objective.

All people are created equal........ however , some are created more equal than others!

I don't believe that (at this point) there is any such thing as "equality"

 

[Hvr]

<snip>


Perhaps Bill Shorten et al should be more concerned about this detrimental effect he is causing all these members, because if it wasnt for him SSM would have been legalised by now! Have you taken this up with him?

The plebiscite may have been held but that doesn't mean the Liberal-National Party coalition would've actually introduced legislation to the Parliament. Their far right factions will never allow a free vote on SSM and will do every thing possible to thwart its introduction in Australia.


Besides we elect politicians to make decisions, this is purely a political decision because the majority of people in Australia want it to happen.

Finally, it needs to be remembered that same sex marriage will not be compulsory. It will be voluntary between consenting adults only.

 

[dajop]

Besides we elect politicians to make decisions, this is purely a political decision because the majority of people in Australia want it to happen.

I wouldn't be so sure as to say the majority "want" it to happen. I expect that most are in the ambivalent category - ie they don't care and don't object to it happening.

 

[Pushka]

I wouldn't be so sure as to say the majority "want" it to happen. I expect that most are in the ambivalent category - ie they don't care and don't object to it happening.

Yes. I think so too. Which is why I think that saying the last election determined that the same-sex equality issue had lost, is nonsense.