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

[Rebekkap]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

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.

It's a real stretch to suggest that people who are talking anonymously over the phone, in the full knowledge that they're talking with a professional polling company like Roy Morgan or Newspoll, are worried that the professional pollsters are going to call them homophobic if they reply to the poll question that they don't think same-sex marriage should be legislated. It's particularly interesting given there is no real gap between public polling and election results. No one is scared that the pollsters will call them racists if they admit they're voting One Nation, for example.

Generally, I find your post fairly representative of the remarkable mental gymnastics the anti-gay marriage proponents will do to dismiss the actual factual evidence when it doesn't support their pre-existing beliefs. It's a shame that like in many other countries, you're going to find yourselves on the losing side when this (finally) happens. Oh wait, no it's not.

 

[get me outta here]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Due to 'technical difficulties', I paraphrased what I considered an unpleasant, unfair and name calling post. As there are a few of them on here now, it is irrelevant. My post 126 was the only one that I noticed being redacted, but due to my aforementioned tech probs, there may have been more which I did not notice.

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.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Did we have a vote on whether black people should have equal rights?

Well, yes, actually - the 1967 referendum which was basically about altering the Constitution to give aboriginal Australians the same rights to vote etc as everyone else, and to count them in census data as Australian citizens.

 

[scwappy]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

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

My understanding is that it was a very difficult time in Ireland seeing debating on TV whether you were a pedophile, a pervert, unfit to raise children etc.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Well, yes, actually - the 1967 referendum which was basically about altering the Constitution to give aboriginal Australians the same rights to vote etc as everyone else, and to count them in census data as Australian citizens.

Which was only necessary because an amendment to the constitution was needed.
That doesn't apply here.
Just as we didn't have a referendum for the rights of women, or asian people, or non-indigenous black people.

That is why I oppose a plebiscite.
I don't actually agree with the argument that we should resile from toxic debate. Bring it on! I welcome the opportunity to call out the bigots.
I oppose it because it is meaningless. It has no place under our constitution and political system.

Incidentally where does this absolute nonsense about marriage originally being a religious institution come from?
First, which religion?
Do you think people in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome didn't get married?
Obviously they did, so do pagans "own" marriage? Should we consult them? They didn't have a taboo on homosexuality.
Second, marriage is primarily a legal institution. It is about the allocation of property rights and inheritance and succession.
Sure religion likes to get in on the act as they do for all important rites and they had largely taken over the ceremony.
They have also taken over the ceremony at funerals. And christenings (generically naming ceremonies). That doesn't mean death or birth or naming children were originally religious things.
Third, we already have non-religious marriage. Any marriage conducted in a registry office or by a non-religious celebrant is a non-religious marriage.
So there can be no argument that religion should be able to determine who can be married in such a way.
Finally, religion is just someone's set of beliefs. It deserves no more (or less) respect and priority than anyone else's beliefs.
So they can't make anyone entitled to interfere with the rights of others, much less assault them with baked goods.

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

Due to 'technical difficulties', I paraphrased what I considered an unpleasant, unfair and name calling post. As there are a few of them on here now, it is irrelevant. My post 126 was the only one that I noticed being redacted, but due to my aforementioned tech probs, there may have been more which I did not notice.

Mine was too. Lots of others were. Mine wasn't personally attacking anyone but was deleted as being off topic. Not sure why.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

<snip>
Generally, I find your post fairly representative of the remarkable mental gymnastics the anti-gay marriage proponents will do to dismiss the actual factual evidence when it doesn't support their pre-existing beliefs. It's a shame that like in many other countries, you're going to find yourselves on the losing side when this (finally) happens. Oh wait, no it's not.

If you read several of my posts, not that far above, you'll see that I'm in favour of gay marriage. What I am against, and argue against in many threads like this, is the cant and hypocrisy exhibited by many on the 'progressive' side of the debate - and the conservative side too, if it comes to that. Unfortunately, its a common theme amongst the 'progressive' side, that if you happen to express an opinion even mildly against theirs, is that the vicious name calling comes out - 'homophobic', 'racist', 'stupid' and so on. And no, saying offensive things its not restricted to the 'progressive' side, but its that they usually take the high moral ground while doing it that gets my goat.

People within the gay lobby (broadly speaking) are not beyond a bit of hate speech themselves, when it comes to people who happen to speak out against gay marriage and they weaken their moral position greatly when they do so. And that's not new. Who remembers when the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras featured their opponent, Rev Fred Nile, beheaded at the head of the parade? How does that compare to a pie in the face?

A pie in the face of the Qantas CEO automatically becomes an anti-gay or homophobic act. What abut the other public figures who have also worn a pie in the face (see drron's post above)? Were those also anti gay or homophobic acts? I don't believe so. The perpetrators I suggest just didn't like what their victim was saying or doing or had done, but wasn't so outraged as to be more violent. I reckon the same could be said of the attack on Alan Joyce, but again, we'll have to wait and see if his true motivation comes out.

esseeeayeenn, I concede your point regarding the non-vote on certain other rights issues, but I would argue about the magnitude of the rights compared. As it happens, in the case of gay marriage in Australia, we had an election, and the side that won offered a plebiscite on the issue, and with the obvious support of the PM and probably most of the Parliament, if the plebiscite was passed in affirmative it would be law by now. As we know, the plebiscite was blocked in the Parliament so never came to a vote.

If you believe the polls (and I don't), anyone is looking for some-one or a group to blame as to why gay marriage is not law in Australia right now, do not blame the anti-gay marriage lot.

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

If I was angry enough to shove a pie in the face of a high profile CEO at a high profile event then I'd say hate did come into that decision.

I do take your point about being given a label or nasty tag if you dare disagree with some of high falutin' thought bubbles that come into some people's heads and that must be accepted as gospel or else.

But unless you have very strong religious views that absolutely prevent you from considering marriage as only being between a man and a woman (which is your right to do so but not all strictly religious people agree on that) then I cant see why anyone would be against equality in marriage.

 

[Robbo3]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

If I was angry enough to shove a pie in the face of a high profile CEO at a high profile event then I'd say hate did come into that decision.

I do take your point about being given a label or nasty tag if you dare disagree with some of high falutin' thought bubbles that come into some people's heads and that must be accepted as gospel or else.

But unless you have very strong religious views that absolutely prevent you from considering marriage as only being between a man and a woman (which is your right to do so but not all strictly religious people agree on that) then I cant see why anyone would be against equality in marriage.

Countries that have broadened the definition of marriage have also gone on to make other policy changes/amendments. Studies on the impacts of these changes to immediate families and broader society are available, with more to come. Not my point to post links or describe further, just know that there are non-religious people who make decisions on a broad range of considerations.

 

[Pushka]

AJ gets pie in the face

Countries that have broadened the definition of marriage have also gone on to make other policy changes/amendments. Studies on the impacts of these changes to immediate families and broader society are available, with more to come. Not my point to post links or describe further, just know that there are non-religious people who make decisions on a broad range of considerations.

If by that you mean the possibility of 'unintended consequences' that doesn't seem to have stopped policy change before. I'd like a better understanding of further implications though because from where I sit on this issue I either don't see them nor consider them insurmountable.

 

[PLANT]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Word is the pie is in a holding pattern.

 

[samh004]

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'.

This isn't the right thread, but surely the only reason for being against a plebiscite should be that our system elects individuals to parliament so they can debate and ultimately vote on issues. Therefore, if that system works for every other issue, why change it for one social issue?

Or to perhaps swing it the other way, should we have a plebiscite on the budget, a plebiscite on defence contracts, a plebiscite on whatever other bills are introduced into parliament? The answer is clearly no. We have elected individuals, members of parliament/senate. Their job is to debate, draft legislation and pass it. I don't pretend to understand how government works, but I do know the general principle. This is just passing the buck.

Don't be surprised if this thread gets a clean-up, along with my post. We're way off-topic.

 

[alieninperth]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

my own 2c is that a plebiscite should only be used for constitutional issues. this is not one of those. Anyway, we are so far OT that I think this thread should be locked.

Perhaps we should have a vote on it .

 

[samh004]

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

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.

Just because a post has been edited, doesn't mean it needs to have a publicly visible reason attached to the bottom of it. Perhaps the user has also received a warning, or simply knows why their post was edited.

This thread now contains the off-topic discussion that spawned from the AJ pie-in-the-face thread. If you want to talk specifically about the act/crime where he received a pie to the face, please post in the original thread. However, if you want to talk about social issues that have been brought up because of the act/crime... you're in the right spot.

The thread are titled fairly similarly, so look at the forum you are posting in before submitting your message, as posts in the wrong thread may be deleted.

 

[oz_mark]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

my own 2c is that a plebiscite should only be used for constitutional issues. this is not one of those.

Staying OT. In Australia, constitutional chages are decided by Referendum. Voting on issues that don't affect the constitution are plebiscites. Our national song was chosen by plebiscite!

 

[samh004]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

Staying OT. In Australia, constitutional chages are decided by Referendum. Voting on issues that don't affect the constitution are plebiscites. Our national song was chosen by plebiscite!

So what do the MP's do? Considering how much we're paying them, you'd have thought they could do a little more, like say, represent the people that have elected them by voting on a particular issue in parliament... otherwise, why even bother electing them if we're just going to do their job for them?

And why, as another posted mentioned earlier, was Howard able to change the definition of marriage without a plebiscite, but we do need one now to do it again?

 

[Katie]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

And no, I don't think corporate bosses should use their company platforms to take 'social' positions. They should stick to running their companies and not court controversy for their company by being outspoken on 'hot' issues'.# No controversy is in their shareholder's interests, and those are the ONLY interests they should be concerned with.

I'm curious - in your belief then, can companies and their CEOs support non-controversial social issues?

If so, it's OK for Qantas to support breast and prostate cancer, UNICEF, and reconciliation* because these are non-controversial causes?
(*For some, reconciliation may be a controversial cause).

I'm asking because I'm wondering in general where the threshold between controversial and non-controversial is. I suspect that threshold is influenced very much by personal beliefs and attitudes, though there are probably some general views that hold a majority consensus within a particular culture.

 

[Simsy85]

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.

This is the argument many trot out against SSM. The problem is the alternatives just aren't the same as marriage in todays secular society. Want proof? a friend of mine's same sex partner died - he had to go through an exhausting and invasive process to prove to the life insurance, that he was his partners spouse and not his room mate, despite being in a loving relationship for many years. No same sex couple would be asked that.

The Marriage Act makes no mention of religion. if those people don't want the people who don't meet their criteria to be married, does that mean I can't get married? I'm a hetrosexual male, with a hetrosexual female partner, but neither of us are religious. By that rationale, I shouldn't be allowed to get married.

I go back to my original point - the Marriage Act has no mention of religion.

 

[Simsy85]

Re: AJ gets pie in the face

I'm curious - in your belief then, can companies and their CEOs support non-controversial social issues?

If so, it's OK for Qantas to support breast and prostate cancer, UNICEF, and reconciliation* because these are non-controversial causes?
(*For some, reconciliation may be a controversial cause).

I'm asking because I'm wondering in general where the threshold between controversial and non-controversial is. I suspect that threshold is influenced very much by personal beliefs and attitudes, though there are probably some general views that hold a majority consensus within a particular culture.

Just cause's that don't make the OP feel uncomfortable inside....

The attack was a hate crime under the definition of the Criminal Code in WA. It should be treated as such. No more, no less.

 

[serfty]

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.

[Moderator Hat]

Closed for Review​

[/Moderator Hat]