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

[burmans]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Plenty of religious folk don't hate gay people, but at the same time they don't want SSM.

Yeah we get it, they don't hate gay people, they just hate people being gay.

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

The protestor came at Bracks from the front/side where I think he saw it coming, even if he had a second or two to react.

AJ was assaulted from behind with zero warning. Nor would he expect at at business breakfast someone to come from behind and assault him.

Both actions were bad (and noting the kid was caught up in the SB pie-ing)

just sayin'

 

[straitman]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

An interesting debate thanks people and without too much aggression for a change. Thank you.

The only part I personally have trouble with is some people still can't get it that we can all have a different opinion and still get along.

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

As an aside, the pied piper refers to "QANTAS Boarding Pass Propaganda" - I never recall seeing any pro-SSM stuff on BP's? Sure, there's Rainbow Roo and the activities around the Sydney Mardi-gras, and there may have been related material on BP's but I don't recall anything specific? Does anyone?

 

[drron]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

An interesting debate thanks people and without too much aggression for a change. Thank you.

The only part I personally have trouble with is some people still can't get it that we can all have a different opinion and still get along.

Can I give this 100 likes.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Yeah we get it, they don't hate gay people, they just hate people being gay.

No, their argument is that marriage was originally a religious concept (since copied/subsumed by broader society).

Most of the "religious" people against SSM are fine with "civil unions" or another name for a binding legal condition of two same sex people forming a partnership.

But they want the word "marriage" reserved for the old-fashioned (originally religious) meaning, i.e. a man and a woman.

So for most of those taking the anti-SSM view for religious reasons, it's actually about the name used, nothing else.

 

[get me outta here]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I've been redacted , but the original post I was commenting on with their opinion is still there. This IS a political and sexual
preference issue. Otherwise, what is the point of this thread at all. This thread just elaborates.

<redacted>

The pie action was assault no matter what the politics or sexual preference.

 

[PLANT]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

That is correct the pie was assaulted and should be awarded a cherry on top!

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I wonder what the choice of type of pie tells us about an assailant?

Lemon cream: unimaginative
Merangue toppings: A bit of a show off
Fully dressed fruit pavlova: Wasteful
Shaving cream: Deceptive
Blueberry: exotic
Apple: Rural pretensions
Chocolate mousse: Has a dark side

 

[njba]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I wonder what the choice of type of pie tells us about an assailant?

Lemon cream: unimaginative
Merangue toppings: A bit of a show off
Fully dressed fruit pavlova: Wasteful
Shaving cream: Deceptive
Blueberry: exotic
Apple: Rural pretensions
Chocolate mousse: Has a dark side

the palova bit made my morning.

 

[Infrequent]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I wonder what the choice of type of pie tells us about an assailant?

Lemon cream: unimaginative
Merangue toppings: A bit of a show off
Fully dressed fruit pavlova: Wasteful
Shaving cream: Deceptive
Blueberry: exotic
Apple: Rural pretensions
Chocolate mousse: Has a dark side

Risking the reaction of the thin skin brigade ... Fully dressed fruit pavlova: Wasteful - some might think you were referring to AJ!



_________
Well, many would agree AJ's been wasteful, and he'd agree about the fruit bit ... and you can't argue about being fully dressed!

 

[Danger]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I've been redacted , but the original post I was commenting on with their opinion is still there. This IS a political and sexual
preference issue. Otherwise, what is the point of this thread at all. This thread just elaborates.

I'm curious as to how you post has apparently been editing but there's no evidence of that. The "Last edited by: . . ." at the bottom does not appear.

 

[Rebekkap]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

No, their argument is that marriage was originally a religious concept (since copied/subsumed by broader society).

Most of the "religious" people against SSM are fine with "civil unions" or another name for a binding legal condition of two same sex people forming a partnership.

But they want the word "marriage" reserved for the old-fashioned (originally religious) meaning, i.e. a man and a woman.

So for most of those taking the anti-SSM view for religious reasons, it's actually about the name used, nothing else.

And their argument is completely factually wrong. Marriage in the western tradition was NOT originally a religious concept. I have a Masters in religious history.

Marriage did not become a sacrament in the Christian church until 1148 CE at the Council of Verona. Before that marriage was treated as a civil matter and the ceremony (if there was even a formal ceremony) was essentially the same as the Roman nuptial service (again, a matter of civil law in Ancient Rome). Usually the marriage "ceremony" was just two people saying before witnesses that they agreed to marry (and then consummating the marriage, generally also with witnesses as they didn't really have a concept of privacy back then).

It is a complete nonsense to suggest that we shouldn't allow same sex marriage because marriage started out a second a religious ceremony, just as it's complete nonsense to suggest as another poster did earlier in the thread that it's just a "noisy minority" or "the left wing" that wants marriage equality, when scientifically conducted poll after scientifically conducted poll (this means the poll has a demonstrably representative, statistically significant sample) shows a significant majority of Australians want it legislated (upwards of 70%)

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. If you don't agree with same sex marriage you should definitely be allowed to refuse to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. But that's where your rights end - you do not have any right whatsoever to have your opinion forced onto other people to stop them from being able to marry the person they love. And when you use fake "facts" to support your argument, it just makes you look wilfully ignorant as well as homophobic (and no, you can't want to deny someone equal rights and the name claim "but that's not homophobic")

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

<snip>
It is a complete nonsense to suggest that we shouldn't allow same sex marriage because marriage started out a second a religious ceremony, just as it's complete nonsense to suggest as another poster did earlier in the thread that it's just a "noisy minority" or "the left wing" that wants marriage equality, when scientifically conducted poll after scientifically conducted poll (this means the poll has a demonstrably representative, statistically significant sample) shows a significant majority of Australians want it legislated (upwards of 70%)
<snip>")

... which makes it all the more astounding that the 'gay lobby' (quotes because I'm not sure if that's the correct term) was so dead set against a plebiscite on the topic. If the opposition party(-ies) had agreed to it, and if it had the public support you quote, then same sex marriage would be legislated by now. Argument over and decision of Parliament unassailable by critics, as it would be shown to be the public's true will.

Of course the flaw in your argument about 'scientifically conducted poll(s)' is that people tend to give the 'correct' response when questioned, in part because otherwise they get called 'homophobic' and the like. In the privacy of a voting booth, they say what they really think. Same phenomenon as with the republic referendum and polls before it. I believe the gay lobby and opposition party(-ies) recognised that phenomenon, which is why they didn't want the question to go to the public.

Generally, I find your post fairly representative of the strident and hectoring tone of most of the pro same sex marriage proponents, and while that happens, the public won't be swayed, which is a shame.

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

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.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Maybe, but every election/vote has that element. Should the current government cancel the next election because there will be some extreme prejudice exposed? Genuine question.

I think in Ireland the vote passed, didn't it? Wonder if they regret having it because of the 'toxicity'.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

... (and no, you can't want to deny someone equal rights and the name claim "but that's not homophobic")

Of course you can: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

Maybe, but every election/vote has that element. Should the current government cancel the next election because there will be some extreme prejudice exposed? Genuine question.

I think in Ireland the vote passed, didn't it? Wonder if they regret having it because of the 'toxicity'.

Not in the same way. We have to have elections. Sure things get nasty but in this case so called 'moral' issues strike at the core of one's identity. It gets very personal - it queries the equality of one group within society as to their rights to do something - and religious at that - while election issues are general.

Justice Kirby was living in Ireland at the time of the plebiscite and said never before had he experienced such scrutiny of him. It impacted on society for months. He was adamant that Australia not seek marriage equality via the same route.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/gay-marriage-plebiscite-the-irish-experience-20160914-grgn3l.html

I do agree that not being in favour of marriage equality does not necessarily make someone homophobic.

 

[paxman]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

how come John Howard didn't have to have a vote of the people before he changed the marriage act? which until he did so (without consulting the population remember) was worded to be gender neutral. there seems to be two standards at play here.

and even though the Irish voted yes, nobody said they enjoyed the process.

vive le difference

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Maybe, but every election/vote has that element. Should the current government cancel the next election because there will be some extreme prejudice exposed? Genuine question.

I think in Ireland the vote passed, didn't it? Wonder if they regret having it because of the 'toxicity'.

Did we have a vote on whether black people should have equal rights?
Did we have a vote on whether women should have equal rights?
Did we have a vote on whether white people should be allowed to marry black people?
No.
Because fundamental human rights are something which should be recognised, not put to a vote.