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

[get me outta here]

There certainly was a father involved, in fact some babies have 2 fathers or more. They just need to be good fathers.

 

[Pushka]

But you liked a post that said she shouldn't air her views. Ein confusen is pidgin

You seem determined to take me to task. So let me deal with the "Like". Unfortunately there isn't a process (that I am aware of) to indicate I like a "part" or "portion" of what was said. So sue me !

If you're going to use pidgin German, have the courtesy of letting us poor unfortunates know in advance. And then have the courtesy of using the "full" expression up front rather than just part of it. Further adding to the confusion. And then maybe, just maybe give an actual translation to clarify.
To take a condescending manner because I either don't know or wasn't given the chance to know is just plain rude.

I hope that clears up any "confusion " you may have about my position?

Back to the debate , I don't give a Fig if Margaret Court approves of Same sex marriage, I don't care if she disapproves of sex before marriage. I frankly don't care one way or the other what she believes in.

What I do care about is (in the context of this discussion) is her right to an opinion.
I also care that AJ is equally entitled to an opinion.
I haven't been present at any Qantas Board meeting (ever) so I don't know what has gone on behind closed doors.
But I have a fairly strong suspicion that AJ doesn't get to make unilateral Qantas policy on the run. I may be wrong, but I reckon he needs board and overall corporate support to voice a position on behalf of Qantas.

As for Margaret Court, she is (I believe) a member of some evangelical church with (IMHO) fairly outdated views on society and how we should behave and how we should accept difference in our fellow members of society.
However in spite of her views being unpalatable to many, she does have a right to them.

Now we get back to my "like" again. What I "liked" was the comment that if she doesn't want to fly Qantas, then don't fly Qantas.

I don't like things that happen in the world. Some of the things I don't lie are minor and insignificant in the overall scheme of things.
I don't like self serve checkouts in Coles and Woolies, so I vote with my feet, and refuse to use them.
I don't like throw away pens, so I use a fountain pen or a ball point that takes a refill. But until now, no one knew any of that. Why?
Because like Margaret Court, it's just not interesting.

One of the great things about social media is it gives voice to the dull and uninteresting of this world, one of the worst things about social media is that it gives voice to the dull and uninteresting of this world.

That is my opinion and I don't much care if anyone agrees with it. Because like noses, everyone has one (an opinion)

Yowsers. And you think I took you to task? All I asked was why you liked a post when that post seemed to conflict with what you were saying. Hence 'Ein confusen?' Joke Joyce. (Which in this reference is an expression that Graham Kennedy would say not the person discussed here). I also can't see the condescension you refer to in my response. It is an expression I use here a few times. Nothing more. Clearly my attempt at humour failed for you. Oh well such is life.

 

[Deleted member]

Yowsers. And you think I took you to task? All I asked was why you liked a post when that post seemed to conflict with what you were saying. Hence 'Ein confusen?' Joke Joyce. (Which in this reference is an expression that Graham Kennedy would say not the person discussed here). I also can't see the condescension you refer to in my response. It is an expression I use here a few times. Nothing more. Clearly my attempt at humour failed for you. Oh well such is life.

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

 

[RooFlyer]

Even with a plebiscite a future parliament can simply vote to change the law back again. They're not binding, and even a 'yes' vote doesn't bind the current members to vote in a certain way.

You'd need something like a Bill of Rights (which includes same sex equality) to be enshrined via a referendum.

Yes, but a Parliament going against a majority plebiscite decision is quite different from legislating in favour of the majority decision.
Heaven preserve us from a Bill of Rights'which would deliver us into the hands of unelected judges.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes, but a Parliament going against a majority plebiscite decision is quite different from legislating in favour of the majority decision.
Heaven preserve us from a Bill of Rights'which would deliver us into the hands of unelected judges.

I don't see any difference. The make up of parliament could change... look at Trump's election and other close calls. New parliament can come in and claim a mandate to change back to man+woman.

We're already in the hands of 'unelected' judges (although they are appointed by the MPs we elect). I think our High Court has done a pretty good job of protecting us so far on issues where they're able.

 

[JohnK]

She's fighting for something negative.

She is fighting for something she strongly believes. We can't tell her how she should think.

Her fight for her religion is just as relevant and important as the fight for sexual equality. That I have no doubt otherwise people are judging what is worth fighting for and what is not worth fighting for which is totally wrong.

I try to avoid to these debates and let people fight for what they believe but one thing is very clear in my mind and that is the bashing that goes against religions (especially Christianity and the Bible) and people who believe in those religions. Very sad and very disappointing to continuously see the bashing. It happens a lot on this forum and is allowed to continue.

Wrong.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

She is fighting for something she strongly believes. We can't tell her how she should think.

Her fight for her religion is just as relevant and important as the fight for sexual equality. That I have no doubt otherwise people are judging what is worth fighting for and what is not worth fighting for which is totally wrong.

I try to avoid to these debates and let people fight for what they believe but one thing is very clear in my mind and that is the bashing that goes against religions (especially Christianity and the Bible) and people who believe in those religions. Very sad and very disappointing to continuously see the bashing. It happens a lot on this forum and is allowed to continue.

Wrong.

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?

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?

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, and that those views can affect the mental health of those who might be vulnerable is a different issue. If you can't say something psitive, perhaps keep your views private?

 

[turtlemichael]

She is fighting for something she strongly believes. We can't tell her how she should think.

Her fight for her religion is just as relevant and important as the fight for sexual equality. That I have no doubt otherwise people are judging what is worth fighting for and what is not worth fighting for which is totally wrong.

I try to avoid to these debates and let people fight for what they believe but one thing is very clear in my mind and that is the bashing that goes against religions (especially Christianity and the Bible) and people who believe in those religions. Very sad and very disappointing to continuously see the bashing. It happens a lot on this forum and is allowed to continue.

Wrong.

Very few people, if any, have said that she has no right to her views or to express them forcefully. But I don't think because she is "religious" that gives her any special rights for her views to go unchallenged. This is the more so when you could interpret her comments on others' relationships as hurtful and none of her business. She should expect to be called out for hypocrisy when she says on the one hand she won't "where possible" fly an airline which supports marriage equality but on the other hand will have an arena named after herself even though its operators strongly have the same view as Qantas.

The only small qualm I have is that I suspect her motive is at least part to get publicity and this is giving it to her.

 

[ermen]

Seems an overreach to me to be "disgusted" by people who happen to have a job voicing their opinion on things, even if they get attention by the platform of that position. Perhaps only people who don't have a job should be able to voice an opinion. If you take out business people and the public service and people in unpaid jobs, there's not a lot left. Or, would it be OK after work hours?

If if we don't like people's opinion we can simply disagree with it. "Disgust", is voiced as a mask of confected outrage at someone who does not share your view.

Let me rephrase - I am disgusted that organisations will wade into this sphere, which they should not be in.
What AJ, or others do in their personal capacity, is not a problem at all.
Where it is a problem is when they bring their entire organisation into this - which, like it or not, means that the entire organisation gives their tacit consent, even though a large portion (majority?) do not agree.

Case in point, the DOD with their rainbow lapels and marching in uniforms in what is perceived to be wading into political activism at the Sydney mardi gras

Inclusiveness / anti-discrimination versus the political activism around LGBT issues are two separate causes and are confused.

 

[ermen]

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?

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?

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, and that those views can affect the mental health of those who might be vulnerable is a different issue. If you can't say something psitive, perhaps keep your views private?

You are running a "straw man" the argument which deserves a cogent response. How has declaring your religious beliefs and what not, got to do with someone going about their daily lives? Totally flawed argument.

Or put another way, take someone who is against SSM. Will that person as a doctor not treat a gay patient? As a lifesaver not save a gay swimmer? Or as a waiter not server a gay patron? I don't think so. In fact, the fact that this does not happen, by and large, is proof that you can have your view, and not be discriminatory.

Are you advocating political correctness? Just because something is perceived to be "offensive", you cannot say it. It is actually reflective of where public debate is going and the ongoing PC correctness, where universities are even having to create "safe spaces" for students who are upset over certain topics.

University of Chicago rejects 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' in letter to students

And finally, come to think of it, Margaret Court has more business speaking up for her views on SSM (as a leader of religious organisation), than a CEO of an airline (whose job is to make sure planes fly around safely) or say a general (whose job is to prosecute a defence strategy).

I see a time actually, where the mental health of children who do not subscribe to SSM, will be affected, where they will be bullied in school for standing up for their views. It is already happening in the adult sphere (just see the backlash against Margaret Court and other examples cited above) and it is only a matter of time before it trickles down to the playground.

 

[tgh]

Interesting conversation…

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Interesting conversation…

Bloody boring conversation - how or why should there ever be a discussion in these times as to sexual preference / marriage equality? Really? In the year 2017 in Australia? Really?

 

[Punky]

Bloody boring conversation - how or why should there ever be a discussion in these times as to sexual preference / marriage equality? Really? In the year 2017 in Australia? Really?

And a discussion there is. It's imnteresting to see how things have changed, and which side is more dismissive and intolerant of the other....

 

[drron]

And a discussion there is. It's imnteresting to see how things have changed, and which side is more dismissive and intolerant of the other....

I actually think it is some people from both sides being dismissive and intolerant of others.

 

[juddles]

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]

Let me rephrase - I am disgusted that organisations will wade into this sphere, which they should not be in.
What AJ, or others do in their personal capacity, is not a problem at all.
Where it is a problem is when they bring their entire organisation into this - which, like it or not, means that the entire organisation gives their tacit consent, even though a large portion (majority?) do not agree.

And it is not our perogative, unless we are shareholders, do have a say into how the organisation is run and the issues they bring weight too. Too be a little cynical of companies (given that I've worked for two different MNCs over the last 18 years, please grant me that cynicism), I am sure companies who throw their weight behind such causes because they feel there is a commercial advantage in doing so. It's not social engineering, it's marketing. Whilst there are some that would feel strong enough to boycott QF as a result (as Margaret Court does), I am sure many feel the opposite way because of this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

Equality is a whole world issue, not just 'first world'. What sort of leadership does Australia show for nations lagging behind in human rights and equality if we can't set an example?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Or put another way, take someone who is against SSM. Will that person as a doctor not treat a gay patient? As a lifesaver not save a gay swimmer? Or as a waiter not server a gay patron? I don't think so. In fact, the fact that this does not happen, by and large, is proof that you can have your view, and not be discriminatory.

But they are discriminatory because they believe that not all people have equal rights.

 

[samh004]

We've discussed these pretty thoroughly above. The main reason for holding a plebiscite is to demonstrate to the naysayers that this socially very contentious change, is in fact the will of the majority, so we can all calm down afterwards. It's a social issue, not political, so society would be the main arbiters and Parliament just legislates what society is majority in favour of.

And if this Parliament was simply to legislate without a positive plebiscite vote, then a future Parliament could simply vote to change the same law back. That OK?

It's not OK, but I am sure we will never be in agreement on this issue, and I am happy to accept that and move on. That OK?

No use beating a dead horse, MEL_Traveller has eloquently said what I would have said and further discussion will just descend into chaos I fear.

I look forward to the future... perhaps a decade or two from now, long after SSM has finally been legalised, where it'll be proven that having two fathers or having two mothers doesn't change how you develop and the scare campaigns of this era can finally be put to bed.

 

[RooFlyer]

It's not OK, but I am sure we will never be in agreement on this issue, and I am happy to accept that and move on. That OK?
<snip>.

Ummm ... its not just you and me in this conversation ... move on by all means . You have read and understand where I stand on SSM, haven't you? I've said it explicitly a couple of times.

<snip>
No use beating a dead horse, MEL_Traveller has eloquently said what I would have said and further discussion will just descend into chaos I fear.
<snip>

That's pretty pessimistic. I think this thread's discussion has been pretty civil (for the most part!) for such a contentious issue.