Gay colors?

[Keg]

New testament was written well after the fact by people with political agendas.

With Luke commonly described as post dating Matthew and Mark and written at a similar time to Acts which does not record the destruction of the temple in AD64 you've got the Gospel accounts written well within 30 years of Jesus life. In terms of ancient documentation that's huge. Those that have researched the subject know this. They also know the fallacy of the 'political' argument.

By all means choose not to believe it but at least base that reasoning on sound research.

[Keg]

"Both parents, iving in the home, every day?" - so you'd ban FIFO workers, long haul pilots and many shiftworkers from having kids?

Not my point. You know it but I guess people resort to a straw man when their own beliefs tend to not be providing the impetus they want.

This is the next straw man.


You call leaving an abusive marriage a "whim" do you? That's sick.

Given the history and context of my comments do you think this is the point I was making? Only someone setting out to deliberately mislead would point to that as the conclusion of my previous comments. Quite obviously there are occasions when for the safety of the mother and child, or father and child, that separation is the best (crap) outcome. The 'whim' here would be the whim of the violent parent who cares little for their child.

Either way, my original point still holds about the system you're proposing.

In this discussion though you're the one that has reduced children's rights to nothing. You're the one has said they have no rights. You're the one who is advocating a system where deliberately and by design a child is deliberately excluded from the the constant love and care of it's biological parents- irrespective of whether those parents are FIFO parents or long haul crew.

[Keg]

If we'd had a plebiscite this wouldn't even be in the news.
.

I'm not so sure. When Shorten and Labor decided to shoot down the plebiscite and advocate for a parliamentary vote that to me was the first sign that the internal polling wasn't going in favour of SSM. I mean if it was such a sure thing, why not support the plebiscite and SSM would be in by now.

Unless of course he and Labor were just playing politics with the issue?

[Balgowan]

In this discussion though you're the one that has reduced children's rights to nothing. You're the one has said they have no rights. You're the one who is advocating a system where deliberately and by design a child is deliberately excluded from the the constant love and care of it's biological parents- irrespective of whether those parents are FIFO parents or long haul crew.

What was that you were saying about straw men?

[theheadmaster]

The Victorian, New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform Commissions all looked at the interest of the child when deciding laws on same sex adoption. They concluded there was no disadvantage.

[dr dre]

in fact there is a distinct global shift in attitudes to the populist right. If we'd had a plebiscite this wouldn't even be in the news.

Not on marriage rights for same sex couples. I haven't heard the Brexit campaigners or the Trump administration seeking to overturn their respective countries marriage laws.
Australia is now one of the last Western democracies to not have Same Sex marriage. Even places like Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Mexico, hardly bastions of human rights have it. We were one of the first countries to have women's suffrage, and we are going to look like turkeys soon if we don't allow marriage for same sex partners.
I'd expect the Liberals at the next federal conference to call for a change to a free vote to take to the next election, a majority of them probably support it anyway and one of the biggest opponents (Bernardi) is gone. So I'd expect it to be legalised around 2019.

[601]

Constitutional Bill of Rights
What happens if your particular "right" is not in the Bill.

Unless of course he and Labor were just playing politics with the issue?

Spot on.

[Opso92]

Ordered an e-ticket from ANZ the other day...in the email their logo came with a rainbow filter applied, I shudder to think what OP's reaction would be!

[Ken Borough]

I see that there are now PJs with the kangaroo in rainbow colours. Where will this end? Do passengers have a choice? :mad::mad::mad::\


https://twitter.com/Louise_Pratt/status/837127132505518080

[titan uranus]

The One Star cousins cop it in the neck even worse with the "Orange washing" amateurville cult like mentality.
As usual, the agenda changes with a new head that's not so inclined as the current. Fuel price will go up and this fluffy crap will go quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.

[theheadmaster]

I see that there are now PJs with the kangaroo in rainbow colours. Where will this end? Do passengers have a choice? :mad::mad::mad::\


https://twitter.com/Louise_Pratt/status/837127132505518080

Yes, you certainly do have a choice. Just like if you are offered a cup of tea and you don't want it, just say 'no thanks'. Is it really that big a deal?

[Jetstarpilot]

Strong rumour here amongst the J* jocks QF sponsoring these brave wimen (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/tiwi-islands-sistagirls-prepare-to-wow-sydney-mardi-gras/8314132) to the party:D

Bloody awesome if tru:ok:

[Fantome]

If it is true that a majority of straight people in Australia regard the alleged sexual practices of many homosexual men to be abhorent then is it not feasible to suggest that any such putative widely held views will not be subject to fundamental change except perhaps within future generations? Within our society in this country, that is. It is surely possible for a reasonable person to hold to such opinions without being labelled rabidly homophobic - across the board. But if, for instance, schools were to include in classes to do with the sex education, detailed descriptions of alternative practices, along with the diagrams common to manuals of sexual instruction, then there would inevitably be strong objections raised by parents and large sections of the community.

Now here's an observation for Mr Ida Down (curious name there cobbs - - it smacks of a slightly 'off' joke as if you'd like to be upending.) For our once proud national carrier to be exploiting the mardi gras for commercial purposes would displease founders Hudson Fysh, Paul McGuinness, Fergus McMaster et al . On a cold and still night near certain graveyards, their mutterings may in imagination be faintly heard. (Thinks - recalling the stern portrait face of another founding director of the company, Ainslie Templeton, there was a visage implacably opposed to deviance of any kind , anywhere.)

IDA DOWN -
But fella's can we forget the gay versus straight war, do we really care if your F/O is gay as long as he/she is competent, who gives a ratz? Can we get back to the paint job?

sorry ida too late for that. You have unwittingly opened a can of writhing worms which has resulted as ever in
a flurry of idiotic posts and some brilliant ones. If awards were handed out for this, pscho joe would be to the fore front. - for his well-honed satirical humour (up there with John Clarke) and his ability not to take himself too G DAMN seriously.
-----------------

perhaps this thread is still going because the mods see the benefit of an open debate on SSM as a healthy and useful thing, there being a few sound thinkers who hop onto proone when they sign off, all weary and spent. (They will find no stimulation or relaxation turning to the often vacuities of the Q and A program on the idiot box.) Maybe , too, they have read Robert Thouless's brilliant little book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". It long pre-dates the SSM debate, by the way. Interesting that some posters see no merit at all in even having the discussion. Are their minds that closed that they have no valid opinion on the subject?

[Fantome]

I would just like to say that when a gay man begins to harangue me for perceived intolerance and prejudice , for having the temerity to suggest that the joining together in wedlock of a man and a woman is somehow on a higher philosophical and conceptual plane than the joining together of a man and a man or the union of a woman with a woman, it is at that point that I become intolerant. Intolerant of the whole damn edifice that seeks to enshrine the homosexual lobby's beliefs into an undifferentiated code of universal acceptance . Normally I'd not have a word to say on the subject , but present circumstances almost demand a response. The law in Australia now permits anything that harms no one to take place in the privacy of a private place. But the advocates of SSM want more than that. They would like to impose their wishes on a majority who are in all probability happy with the status quo. When a man and a woman come together in wedlock is that any different to a man and man wanting a legitimised union or a woman and a woman also wanting this approval? And where does taste come into this? Anywhere? Aesthetes tell us that ultimately in matters of good taste there is a thin fine line separating man from the beasts, below which standards rapidly deteriorate going further and further down the scale into realms decidedly sub-human. For some these views are extreme. But in fact they are only put forward here to illustrate how far we are from any consensus in this country. In the present climate, Cpt Bloggs views on family values and the raising of children
constitute more than just the safe option. They are at the cornerstone, the benchmark , of a stable and happy home, community or country.
Too many pay just lip service to these ideals. Far from materialistic considerations, if we do not do our very best to bring up our kids right-mindedly, then we are on the skids. much as they need love, support and protection, they also need a climate free of indoctrination into the tough questions, at least until a certain age.

[gerry111]

Fantome,

Please try not to panic, regarding 'Ida Down'.

Perhaps the name doesn't has anything to do with any outrageous homosexual inference, that you may fear?

I reckon that it's a play on words of 'eiderdown'. That's a quilt filled with duck feathers.. :)

[le Pingouin]

Indoctrination? I do hope you don't expose them to Christianity then Fantome.

My brother is gay and in a civil partnership with a very nice bloke in the UK (happened before marriage was legalised there) - to my kids this is entirely natural. They haven't been "indoctrinated" but have had their questions answered.

[Derfred]

Fantome,

much as they need love, support and protection

I can only quote 8 words from your diatribe that I agree with.

The rest, is your misguided opinion. There are millions of separated families in this country, and domestic violence towards women and children is front page news almost daily. And it isn't coming from the LGBwhatever community.

There are two families in my neighbourhoud of note, one is a weekly christian church-going family with 2 kids (police just escorted husband out of home due wife and child bashing) and the other is a lesbian couple with a child (who is a good friend to my son), who is a very happy child, and obviously well loved, supported and protected.

I know that's only anecdotal, but you haven't offered any statistics with your post either.

[Fantome]

Don't quote me statistics unless you mean the more comely 'vital statistics'.
My wife's phone number when we first met was 343638 . Old mate, a yank, when I first gave him that number said straight up _ "Kinda pear-shaped!"

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

What did the most recent census ask us to fill in on gender? Was it MALE - FEMALE - OTHERWISE. ?

N.B No one so far has objected to my contention about how you would, hypothetically, go about illustrating a comprehensive sex manual. To cater for all tastes. If you believe that certain practices are perversions of the norm is it offensive to say so?

You don't have to tell me of all the decent upright homosexuals you know who raise "their' children in a happy loving and non-prejudicial domestic setting. I started my last post by pointing out how annoying it is to be talked down to by a minority who presume that I need re-educating.

They haven't been "indoctrinated" but have had their questions answered. I get it. Wait till you are asked - 'please explain?' - Never broach the delicate subject with them, for instance, about what a man might do to a man.
Or give some history of life below decks, SAILOR.

[le Pingouin]

Do you explain what you get up to with your wife in bed to your kids? Other than in the most general terms I don't think so. certainly not when they're 5. Who says I didn't talk to them about it? I answered the questions they asked as a result in an age appropriate manner.

You get precisely nothing, other than your own prejudices.

[QuarterInchSocket]

Gee Fantome, you're all over the shop!

I don't know why I signed in and bothered to reply, but here goes...

I guess I'll start with the question on why nobody has answered your question on the comprehensive sex manual... Well, maybe it's because we see it as a dumb question? I mean, what would the manual be used for? And what relevance would it have? If your conventionally bred kid asked how they were conceived, would you present the karma sutra and a stack of porn mag's with a bunch of supporting multimedia and advise the youngling, "thus! You were conceived in any one of these positions"... fair dinkum!

Does a kid need a manual about sex between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman or whatever other human combination might exist? Or is it better to arm them with the essence of healthy and consensual sexual relations and disease prevention and management?

As for the rest of your ranting... I really can't be bothered. But I'll say this - I reckon you've lost all sense of propriety and tact.

[CaptCloudbuster]

about how you would, hypothetically, go about illustrating a comprehensive sex manual. To cater for all tastes.

Just for you Fanty.... you might learn a trick or two:ok:

The Gay Joy of Sex (https://www.harpercollins.com/9780060012748/the-joy-of-gay-sex)

[Fantome]

oh you are so helpful to show an ignoramus the light . . . I will ever be in your debt . .. stayed up all night reading it . . .. I almost want to know what it is like . .. . to be one of those . .but alas . .crabbed age sans hair sans teeth

THE JOY OF GAY SEX About the Book

For a new century and a new generation of readers comes a fully revised and expanded edition of a classic guide to gay sex, love, and life.
Invaluable as a sex guide, a resource on building self-esteem, and a trusted aid for coming out of the closet, The Joy of Gay Sex covers the ins and outs of gay life alphabetically from "anus" to "wrestling." Noted psychologist Dr. Charles Silverstein has collaborated once again with critically acclaimed novelist Felice Picano on this third edition, updating every single entry and adding nearly thirty new entries. The authors provide positive and responsible advice on safe sex in all its varieties; on emotional and relationship-oriented issues such as long-term couples, loneliness, and growing older; and on scores of diverse topics ranging from spirituality to online dating. With fifty new line drawings by acclaimed illustrator Joseph Phillips, this landmark reference is a necessary addition to every gay man's bookshelf.

[andytug]

Thirty new entries........that's pretty impressive.

[Fantome]

just slipped in . .. unobtrusively

[theheadmaster]

My observation is that the more obsessed with other people's sex lives you are, the less you are probably getting yourself.

[dr dre]

My observation is that the more obsessed with other people's sex lives you are, the less you are probably getting yourself.

Or the more desperate you are to have what those others are getting:ok: :

Top 16 Anti-Gay Politicians Caught Being Gay: Anti-Gay Activists Out of the Closet (http://m.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne)

[Balgowan]

Gay male practice.... felching. Don't eat before you look it up.

Not necessarily a gay practice so I'm not sure what point you're failing to make here.

[unobtanium]

Look up docking too, aircraft engineers love doing it whenever a new aircraft arrives at the hangar.

[Expatrick]

Canadian town "sorry for pink tap water"!

[Derfred]

This is why we can't have nice things...

[Ida down]

Like it or not, it is NOT illegal to have an opinion.

If someone doesn't like flying with blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, atheists whites, men, people with excessive bowel gas discharge, people with poor eating habits, people who pick their nose or flying an aircraft decorated like a Mardi Gras float, it's their right to have those opinions.

The thought police on here would dearly love to dictate exactly what everyone's opinions must be. Thankfully the politically correct here don't have that power, yet.

I have no problem whatsoever with people having opinions contrary to mine, because a healthy society such as Australia is filled with diverse people of different ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and sexual preferences. For this reason it is impossible to expect everyone to have the same opinions. I know you Utopian lefties think we should all think the same as you and will call anyone who disagrees with you homophobic, racist, biggot, or any other of a dozen derogatory adjectives to try and improve your position on your soap box but the real world doesn't work that way.

Taken to its extreme, people are sometimes so hell bent on changing the opinions of others to align with theirs they are willing to commit mass murder to achieve it. Happened in Nazi Germany in the 40's, it happened on Sept 11 2001, and it will happen again like countless other times in history.

Have your opinions by all means. But respect others for having theirs. Well said.

[Ida down]

By the way "hierarchy" is the word you're looking for I believe.Thanks for that. I will let spellcheck know.

[Ida down]

If it is true that a majority of straight people in Australia regard the alleged sexual practices of many homosexual men to be abhorent then is it not feasible to suggest that any such putative widely held views will not be subject to fundamental change except perhaps within future generations? Within our society in this country, that is. It is surely possible for a reasonable person to hold to such opinions without being labelled rabidly homophobic - across the board. But if, for instance, schools were to include in classes to do with the sex education, detailed descriptions of alternative practices, along with the diagrams common to manuals of sexual instruction, then there would inevitably be strong objections raised by parents and large sections of the community.

Now here's an observation for Mr Ida Down (curious name there cobbs - - it smacks of a slightly 'off' joke as if you'd like to be upending.) For our once proud national carrier to be exploiting the mardi gras for commercial purposes would displease founders Hudson Fysh, Paul McGuinness, Fergus McMaster et al . On a cold and still night near certain graveyards, their mutterings may in imagination be faintly heard. (Thinks - recalling the stern portrait face of another founding director of the company, Ainslie Templeton, there was a visage implacably opposed to deviance of any kind , anywhere.)

IDA DOWN -


sorry ida too late for that. You have unwittingly opened a can of writhing worms which has resulted as ever in
a flurry of idiotic posts and some brilliant ones. If awards were handed out for this, pscho joe would be to the fore front. - for his well-honed satirical humour (up there with John Clarke) and his ability not to take himself too G DAMN seriously.
-----------------

perhaps this thread is still going because the mods see the benefit of an open debate on SSM as a healthy and useful thing, there being a few sound thinkers who hop onto proone when they sign off, all weary and spent. (They will find no stimulation or relaxation turning to the often vacuities of the Q and A program on the idiot box.) Maybe , too, they have read Robert Thouless's brilliant little book "Straight and Crooked Thinking". It long pre-dates the SSM debate, by the way. Interesting that some posters see no merit at all in even having the discussion. Are their minds that closed that they have no valid opinion on the subject?
Ida Down was a call sign for a Lancaster Bomber. Its interesting to note Peter Dutton is getting into our beloved CEO this very day. Not only did he do a paint job on one of the aircraft, he has got up Dutton's nose, by being part of a petition to bring up Gay Marriage yet again. Many would be more than delighted, if he brought up the national debt, instead.

[Ida down]

Fantome,

Please try not to panic, regarding 'Ida Down'.

Perhaps the name doesn't has anything to do with any outrageous homosexual inference, that you may fear?

I reckon that it's a play on words of 'eiderdown'. That's a quilt filled with duck feathers.. :)Its the callsign of a Lancaster Bomber, actually.

[gtseraf]

"that" painted aircraft got me home last week, as SLF, from Japan after a 24 hour delay due to another 330 going tech. I must admit, if anything, the colour scheme made me chuckle. To be honest, they could have painted it anything, I did not care, as long as it got me home safely, which it did!

[psycho joe]

I've started drinking Cooper's. it tastes better than the Cool Aid.

[le Pingouin]

What? Dutton's Special Bitter and Twisted?

[Old Fella]

What a bloody shame some think the most important thing our Government has to think about is SSM. Surely there are more pressing issues.

[le Pingouin]

The Government has only themselves to blame - they could simply change the legislation just like Howard did. Problem solved. Move on nothing to see.

[Ken Borough]

The Government has only themselves to blame - they could simply change the legislation just like Howard did. Problem solved. Move on nothing to see.

I could not agree more, not because I'm in favour of SSM. I'm not, but feel that a prolonged debate and plebiscite, and then its aftermath will have a very negative impact on the social fabric of our nation. I can't for the life of me understand why people of the same sex want to marry, especially as they now have the exact-same common law rights of those who are married. The fact that a same sex couple is prevented by law from marriage in no way diminishes them as human beings. Why can't they get on with life and 'live in sin' as do countless heterosexual couples?

[le Pingouin]

Ken, why do heterosexual couples get married when they can have the exact-same common law rights by simply living together? Sure, for some people it's religious but for 75% of us it's not (based on the 25-75% split between religious and civil marriages in recent years). Why are the 75% doing it?

[Derfred]

Ken,

I'm not really interested in why they want to do it.

I'm more interested in why you don't want them to do it.

Why do you feel the need to stop them? How does it affect you?

[Keg]

It affects society. Therefore it affects us all.

[Ultralights]

How exactly does it effect society? and also, SS couples dont have the same rights, as sadly, if one partner dies, his spouse doesnt get anything, unlike "normal" married couples.

[Keg]

Nope. That's incorrect. Same sex couples have been protected under the same de facto legislation as heterosexual couples for a number of years. Just another of the myths that exist.

[jonkster]

If marriage and defacto laws are effectively the same, why not de-legislate marriage and just use the existing de-facto legislation to cover relationships for everyone?

No need for vote or plebiscite and it would solve the whole problem.

People could get ceremonially "married" if they wanted but it would just be a ceremonial thing that some people might like to do but it would not have (or need) any legal underpinning. You would not get any immediate rights from doing the ceremony.

Society would not need any government or legal involvement in "marriages" only in proven relationships, which surely is more significant and important in the long run than having performed a ceremony?

[Ida down]

How exactly does it effect society? and also, SS couples dont have the same rights, as sadly, if one partner dies, his spouse doesnt get anything, unlike "normal" married couples. It also means the courts cannot fleece you,as they do in hetrosexual marriages if you get divorced. You people at least get to keep some of the furniture, just why you want to change that, has me beaten.There is no reason to think Gay divorced will be any better off,once the courts have finished with you.

[Ida down]

"that" painted aircraft got me home last week, as SLF, from Japan after a 24 hour delay due to another 330 going tech. I must admit, if anything, the colour scheme made me chuckle. To be honest, they could have painted it anything, I did not care, as long as it got me home safely, which it did!Over the years, I found if they are painted pink with yellow spots, it normally doesn't affect their performance, or indeed if you fly them just in your jocks, ( which I have to admit to doing) it makes little difference either, its just some find it unusual, to make a aircraft look like a political statement.

[Potsie Weber]

Nope. That's incorrect. Same sex couples have been protected under the same de facto legislation as heterosexual couples for a number of years. Just another of the myths that exist.

We are talking about MARRIAGE not de facto hetro v de facto gay!

There ARE differences between a married couple and de facto couple in regard to property settlement and maintenance. They may be minor, but can be significant if you happen to be the one effected.

De facto's have to essentially "prove" their relationship, to be subject to the Family Law Act. They also have to "prove" the relationship has ended before seeking maintenance. A married person can seek an order for maintenance without the marriage having ended.

[le Pingouin]

Keg, I too would dearly love to know how it will affect society. Same-sex couples already exist, they already have children, they already adopt children, they won't be getting married in your church if your church doesn't want it, our opposite-sex partners will still be there in the morning, men and women won't suddenly develop a hankering for a same-sex marriage rather than an opposite-sex one.

The nexus between marriage and religion is well and truly broken - that horse has well and truly bolted given the fact that 75% of us get married with civil rather than religious celebrants. That was in 2015 and the trend was not towards using religious celebrants.

As much as you might want to cling to traditional values, society has moved on.

[unionist1974]

It is sad that the closure of engine maintennance in Australia , and the loss of hundreds jobs , skills and the effect on true families , does not seem to register with Alan Joyce and his "mates"'

[neville_nobody]

As much as you might want to cling to traditional values, society has moved on.

So just hold a referendum. Easy democratic solution. Society has moved on apparently, so it will be a cut and dry matter.

I personally don't understand why they don't. There's always someone on TV telling me how the majority wants SSM, so just get on with it in the most democratic manner possible.

[unionist1974]

Neville N well put I agree

[hillbillybob]

you can't have a referendum on something that isn't in or is going to put in the constitution

the plebiscite was a white elephant with members lining up to say they wouldn't be bound by it before it even got off the ground (Abetz, Christiansen come to mind)

the rules were changed by howard on the floor and if they are going to be changed again it should be done on the floor

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Well said Asteroid. Finally a few facts inserted into the discussion.

Keg, your posts are always considered and thoughful. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the above, considering your previous post.

[LastMinuteChanges]

@Ida Down: Out of curiosity, why does it bother you so much?

Would you show the same outrage to Black Entertainment Television?

Aviation should be the one domain where none of this matters, but where, we come together to achieve a common goal, and to share a passion between us.

To clarify, are you getting your knickers in a twist over the dominance of 'Gay Rights' when compared with other 'Rights', and that you'd prefer to keep politics out of the workplace, or do you genuinely have concern with the way we are progressing as a society and believe that homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual individuals should be side-lined and ridiculed, or made a point of contention for the benefit of others?

[Derfred]

You people at least get to keep some of the furniture...

Ida down, my arguments in favour of SSM don't make me gay any more than your username makes you a doona-biter. Please don't make it personal.

I am not comfortable watching 2 men making out, and I certainly don't like thinking about what they might get up to in bed. But that's my hang-up. (2 lesbians on the other hand... hmmm, but I digress...)

But I believe they deserve the same rights as you and I, and I'm happy to stand up for that, even if it means flying a gay aeroplane now and then...

[dr dre]

So just hold a referendum. Easy democratic solution. Society has moved on apparently, so it will be a cut and dry matter.

I personally don't understand why they don't. There's always someone on TV telling me how the majority wants SSM, so just get on with it in the most democratic manner possible.

Every person has a fundamental right to marry to a partner of their choosing. This isn't a right that is put up to a popular vote. How would you like if your right to freedom of religion was put up to a vote of the public, with over 50% having to approve of a religious practice before it was legal?

Previously in Australia we had laws restricting interracial marriage between indigenous/non-indigenous couples. Those were legislated out of existence by parliaments. Those parliaments, in effect, redefined the meaning of marriage at the time. And a parliament can do the same today.

[TBM-Legend]

What's all this waffle got to do with Qantas painting a few coloured stripes on an A330? It affects me like passive smoking...

[Derfred]

TBM, I agree, but some seem to believe SSM will destroy their "Pleasantville (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120789/)" society.

The thread is about the appropriateness (or not) of an SSM theme being painted on an airliner. It has diverged here and there but...

But I believe they deserve the same rights as you and I, and I'm happy to stand up for that, even if it means flying a gay aeroplane now and then...

I've done my best to keep it on topic...

[Derfred]

It affects society. Therefore it affects us all.

Keg, my question was to Ken, not you, but since you've re-entered the debate:

Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.

It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.

You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.

So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.

Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:

---

I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.

The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.

You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.

I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.

So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.

Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.

I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.

So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.

---

But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.

The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.

With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.

Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.

So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?

In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?

If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?

Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?

---

Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.

[Lookleft]

I'm not sure why people assume that it is just the Christians who are against SSM. I don't think that people of Jewish,Islam,Hindu, Buddhists are openly supporting it either. If the people in support of SSM are the enlightened members of the community where do they draw the line? Why not amend the Marriage Act to allow for polygamous marriages? If its all about the love why does the LGTBIQ (will someone please explain the difference between the G and the Q) lobby group want it restricted to 2 people. Isn't that concept out of date? If its just about equality and saying that all love is equal why is it restricted to people. There are plenty of people who consider their pets as children and that animals are equal to people so why not extend that equality. Surely in 50 to 100 years time there won't be the moral objection there is now. At least the partner won't have to rely on their well being dependent on a will. Its an extreme example I know but what is the line? Who gets to define where that line is?

Christians have always stood up for what was central to our faith. The Christian faith does not change yet societies values are always changing. The Bible did not prevent woman getting the vote, it does not give anyone the right to denigrate anyone else in society, it does not require you to go to church if you don't believe God exists. Christians will not just accept that SSM is a natural progression when Jesus said

"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The Gay Lobby and its supporters won't agree but Christians like me and Keg don't accept that SSM is a positive step and will continue to disagree. If the majority of Australians don't have a problem with it then lets have a show of hands through the plebiscite. In the meantime ASX listed corporations should not be using their businesses and employees to run a political agenda.

[dr dre]

The Bible did not prevent woman getting the vote,


Errrr, you may want to read about some of the religious arguments made against women's suffrage:

NebraskaStudies.Org (http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0113.html)

Would Jesus Discriminate? - History Lessons (http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/history_lessons.html)

[psycho joe]

Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons

That's a nice slant.

Copernican heliocentrism as touted by Galileo was inaccurate, as were many of his supporting theories around tidal movements etc. It assumed that planetary bodies traveled in a circular rather than elliptical orbit and that tides were caused by the sloshing of the seas as the earth sped up and slowed down in orbit. When the science was questioned over the fact that there was no noticeable stellar parallax that could be determined with equipment at the time (hotly discussed even in the 21st century), Galileo turned to personal attacks on individuals which landed him in hot water with the Catholic Church.

The idea that the church at the time was ignorant of science or thought that the world was flat is simply not true.

Any link between Galileo and a minority group making demands over a democratic majority to force cultural change is tenuous at best.

[Old Fella]

Surely this is not of such importance that 16 pages of PPRuNe has been used up. Our country is going down the gurgler and this SSM and other gay community bitching dominates the debate. I recall being told thirty years ago, by a QF cabin attendant that: "Don't worry about the male attendants being homosexual, most of the girls are too!" It is nothing new. I don't really care what others do, just don't try and convert me.

[Tuck Mach]

Bread and Circuses...

It is rare that I would ever agree with Peter Dutton, a dullard in the truest sense of the word, however whilst the little fella may have a particular desire to lead a debate, he can lever his personal wealth and lead it.

To use the corporation and thinly veil his personal views as representative of the company and the 27,000 employees is not appropriate. For those working at Qantas, their opinion matters little, they do not have a voice, yet he purports to speak in their name.

"It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around."

(From ABC today) Mr Joyce also wrote that it was an economic issue, saying, "more open societies attract better talent".

Given Mr. Joyce failed to provide any factual data to support the assertion, perhaps he can use his personal wealth to ascertain what exactly tangible economic benefit can be captured before committing shareholder funds and time in the company name for a project he personally sees merit in.

[unionist1974]

And all the time the real issues are ignored , This is not the Australia I grew up in . No regard for workers , just identity politics. Go away and stop hindering the progress of this great country. Bring back real leaders who don't mouth the PC bull

[Lookleft]

Yet during the referendum on a Republic, everyone wanted the President to be decided by popular vote and not left to Parliament. You can't have it both ways.

[unionist1974]

Pity AJ does not consider the devastating effect his decision to close engine and component maintenance on real familes . Stop the PC personal agenda AL baby, think about what you have done before you start to lecture the people you put out of work. Or should we have all married each other then you might have kept our jobs. No just honest working MEN. What a limp lettuce leaf you are James Strong would be turning over in his grave. Geoff must be laughing his head off. And Capt Bert Ritchie what would he think

[psycho joe]

In a vigorous and robust democracy, such as exists in Australia everyone will have an opportunity to voice their opinions and politicians will work together to find a common consensus that the electorate can agree with. It is a proud tradition and what has happened over the previous 116 years.


If only that were true today. The political class is dominated by self interest - power. Bill Shorten doesn't give a rats about gays being "married", but he needs the support of the greens to gain power. The Marxist greens couldn't really care less about LGBQTI either but it's a convenient bandwagon with which to push their agenda against anything deemed western culture.

If I wanted to really gain an insight into, or better still represent the average QANTAS pilot, I wouldn't simply go and read the graffiti on the Sydney sim base toilet wall and assume superior knowledge of the QANTAS constituency. And yet this is exactly what our politicians do. They hang around the dunny door of social media (thanks Bill Leak) in order to gain "likes" from the screeching nutters and fringe dwellers, then pat themselves on the back for their "knowledge and understanding" of the people they represent. Except they don't represent the majority, which is demanded by our democracy.

This is why I want a vote in the plebiscite.

[psycho joe]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’


This was also used in the Gettysburg address by Abraham Lincoln. Both Jefferson and Lincoln were white Christian presidents who were both ardently against slavery. How this has anything to do with cohabiting gays in Australia is an interesting leap I'm sure.

Are you suggesting that Jefferson and Lincoln were really LGBTQI advocates?
Or, are you trying to suggest that LGBQTI people in Australia are being treated like African slaves, having been kidnapped sold and then worked in the field and beaten?
Are you suggesting that allowing less than half of one percent of the population dictate the social norms of the majority is somehow akin to freeing the slaves?

"Let the bastardisation of history continue"
...joe

[jonkster]

As far as dictating social norms - it is none of my business who people choose to love and commit to - I have no desire to dictate whether you can or cannot choose to commit to.

There are ratbags and blow hards on *both* sides of the issue who want to turn this into something way more dramatic than it is and that is not helpful or fair, it turns the 'debate' into a slanging match where people get wrongly lumped into extreme stereotypes.

I think most people are not in either stereotype and so step back from the diatribes that tend to float around the issue from both the extreme ends of opinion.

My view is if you can find someone to love and be loved by who am I to say you can't do that? Why should I say if you happen to find someone of the same sex you cannot get the same legal rights as if they were of the opposite? Go for it as far as I am concerned. What happens in other people's bedrooms is none of my business.

For me it comes down to live and let live. Treat people fairly and if it what people do in their private lives doesn't hurt anyone then it is none of my business.

If we modify the law to recognise gay marriages I believe it will have exactly zero impact on me personally but would have a big positive impact for some others. Why should I be a dog in the manger?

If that makes me an LGBTI extremist or anarchist or someone trying to undermine society or with some secret agenda to force people into being gay or subverting children or promoting immorality or whatever then I think that is just plain silly.

If you have a heartfelt belief that gay people shouldn't be married, fair enough - that is how you see the world - it just doesn't make much sense to me.

I cannot see how anyone's opinion will change by the stuff written in this thread, it just gives people a chance to vent, sometimes with great vitriol :(

[AerialPerspective]

Keg, my question was to Ken, not you, but since you've re-entered the debate:

Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.

It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.

You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.

So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.

Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:

---

I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.

The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.

You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.

I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.

So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.

Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.

I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.

So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.

---

But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.

The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.

With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.

Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.

So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?

In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?

If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?

Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?

---

Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.
Very well put Asteroid... I'm with you, it will affect society positively. The loudest and most strident voices of people against it are against it because their 'hang up' is Christianity or some other religion. They totally ignore the fact that a) the law is without emotion and b) the law in this country (aka the supreme law, being the Constitution) has set this country up as a SECULAR STATE as per s116 which contains an establishment clause virtually identical to that in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on which ours is largely based. What people who have a 'faith' need to realise is that an increasing number of us DO NOT and thus we don't need to be lectured and neither does society on what is a legal matter only, specifically about equality. As our Constitution in an original draft had a equal protection clause which was taken out, that avenue is not available to contest the law on this issue. The difference in the United States was that marriage is a State issue and not Federal whereas here is one of the specific rights granted to the Commonwealth on an exclusive basis in s51. My only other comment is that if people think their marriage is 'devalued' by same sex couples being able to marry, then that says more about them and their marriage than it does about SSM.
The last comment I'll make is I commented on this issue about 3-4 weeks ago and I can't believe it's still going on on this thread. Those against it might want to buy a soapbox and set up in the nearest park. That way we can all walk past and ignore them.

[Keg]

The time of day this is posted will make it clear why I'm not posting a longer response. Perhaps more later today. A few excerpts from the dissenting opinions in the US Supreme Court.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

“A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,”

“If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.....
Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims

[psycho joe]

This is Australia.

[Lookleft]

This is a long way from kangaroos carrying rainbow flags but I will go with it. My understanding is that the U.S. Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear arms. In Australia the then Prime Minister restricted the availability of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. According to A2578, using the logic that if the US allows something then we should too, then what Howard did was a restriction of gun owners civil rights.

[pistonpuffer]

Why? Because Marketing told them to, that's why. Why would engineers be enraged by a paint job? Special paint jobs are almost always done during a check - highly unlikely that QF would waste hangar time.

EVA have Hello Kitty planes. No howls of outrage from the engineers there


It is more than marketing, some management are being coerced by a media and social networking campaign. And Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, is a social activist on this issue.

[theheadmaster]

Bread and Circuses...

It is rare that I would ever agree with Peter Dutton, a dullard in the truest sense of the word, however whilst the little fella may have a particular desire to lead a debate, he can lever his personal wealth and lead it.

To use the corporation and thinly veil his personal views as representative of the company and the 27,000 employees is not appropriate. For those working at Qantas, their opinion matters little, they do not have a voice, yet he purports to speak in their name.

"It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around."

(From ABC today) Mr Joyce also wrote that it was an economic issue, saying, "more open societies attract better talent".

Given Mr. Joyce failed to provide any factual data to support the assertion, perhaps he can use his personal wealth to ascertain what exactly tangible economic benefit can be captured before committing shareholder funds and time in the company name for a project he personally sees merit in.

I don't quite follow why you and others assert that it is inappropriate for Joyce to use the company to pursue a policy of supporting social diversity. As CEO, it is precisely his job to implement strategy approved by the board of directors. The CEO is responsible to the board and the shareholders, not the employees. Joyce has stated openly that Qantas supports Mardi Gras, marriage equality, Male Champions of Chance and the Indigenous Reconciliation Action Plan. Joyce believes that by encouraging more people to participate, you increase the available talent pool, which is good for business.

As an openly gay CEO, I find it completely unsurprising for him to bring the experiences of the difficulties encountered by him to his view of how to run the business. Note that the policy does not limit itself to supporting gay people, it also supports women and indigenous people.

I don't see why it is inappropriate for businesses to pursue social policies if those are the values that the board and CEO develop and are supported by the shareholders. If, as employees, you are so opposed to the values and policies of the organisation, you can petition the shareholders and board for change and/or you should choose another employer who's values you can live with.

[psycho joe]

I don't see why it is inappropriate for businesses to pursue social policies if those are the values that the board and CEO develop and are supported by the shareholders.

The problem is that it doesn't meet community standards and expectations. QANTAS is a business and not an aviation arm of get-up. The CEO's vote is worth 1, exactly the same as everyone else. If he wants to be the champion of social engineering he should resign and try his hand at being elected as a politician on that platform.

[Keg]

The hypocrisy is this. Alan Joyce mentioned a number of other causes that Qantas has championed and sure, we've had a R on a Dash 8 for the recognise campaign, a mo on a 737 for Movember and a blue ribbon for prostrate cancer (after the CEO had prostrate cancer). He also mentioned the homelessness campaign amongst others.

So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?

Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.

It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.

At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.

I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.

[theheadmaster]

The problem is that it doesn't meet community standards and expectations. QANTAS is a business and not an aviation arm of get-up. The CEO's vote is worth 1, exactly the same as everyone else. If he wants to be the champion of social engineering he should resign and try his hand at being elected as a politician on that platform.

If what you say is correct, that is, the policies being pursued by Qantas under the leadership of Joyce, do not meet community expectations, then the company performance will suffer. If that happens, then Joyce will be answerable to the board and the shareholders, which is exactly what I stated above. So, if social policies are supported by a business, it will be answerable for those decisions as a business.

Regarding your statement that the CEO has 1 vote, I don't quite follow your meaning. If you are referring to political elections, you are correct. However, when it comes to setting policy within Qantas, his 'vote' counts for a hell of a lot. As I stated above, it is the duty of the CEO and Board to set policy.

I don't agree with your statement about 'social engineering'. Companies, individuals, unions, non-profit organisations and a plethora of other interested parties petition and lobby politicians, place advertisements on media and use other methods to influence opinion. I think it is ironic that someone trying to influence opinion on a web site is criticising someone else for doing the same thing (although Joyce is being more effective and also on the 'right side' of the argument in this case).

[psycho joe]

Im arguing for democracy. If you'll recall the federal government was democratically voted into government. They should be allowed to govern. They went to the election with the plebiscite and they have a mandate. Alan Joyce, didn't win an election, he has no mandate. His views represent his own and in a plebiscite his vote equals one.

That's democracy.

On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.

It begs the question. If this was someone like Gina Rinehart trying to force the governments hand in changing the law to suit herself would you be as complicit?

[theheadmaster]

The hypocrisy is this. Alan Joyce mentioned a number of other causes that Qantas has championed and sure, we've had a R on a Dash 8 for the recognise campaign, a mo on a 737 for Movember and a blue ribbon for prostrate cancer (after the CEO had prostrate cancer). He also mentioned the homelessness campaign amongst others.

So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?

Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.

It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.

At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.

I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.

I am not sure where the hypocrisy is Keg. All are worthy causes and have been supported. Hypocrisy would be saying they supported these causes and doing nothing about it. Supporting some causes more than others, or being seen to support some more than others is not hypocrisy.

I am not quite sure what you are referring to with regard to the 'Michael Barnett' comments. What I will say is that it is entirely appropriate for a company to have a policy on social issues such as diversity. It is also entirely appropriate to have people in leadership positions in a company hold the same values as those of the company. The Army had similar issues with attitudes towards diversity. Lieutenant General David Morrison stated to those in the Army who did not agree with the Army values - if you don't agree, you have no place here.

Regarding section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, how would discussing SSM be illegal if sexual preference was included? You misunderstand the legislation. Such action would only become unlawful if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.

Finally, there is a big difference between 'prostrate' and 'prostate'.

[theheadmaster]

Im arguing for democracy. If you'll recall the federal government was democratically voted into government. They should be allowed to govern. They went to the election with the plebiscite and they have a mandate. Alan Joyce, didn't win an election, he has no mandate. His views represent his own and in a plebiscite his vote equals one.

That's democracy.

On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.

I fail to see how supporting social issues is undemocratic. I agree, ultimately, the issue of marriage equality is for the Parliament. Although it is for the Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage, that does not mean that individuals should not be able to express a view on the subject. in fact, although Australia does not have a bill of rights within its Constitution, the High Court has found that the Constitution has an implied right to political expression. So, your view that Joyce should not express a political view as he is not elected to government is completely misguided.

Moreover, even if there is a plebiscite, Members of Parliament and Senators will not be bound by the result. So, if an MP states that they were elected on their anti-gay marriage stance and their electorate is against the proposal, yet the plebiscite shows a majority in favour of SSM, how should they vote? Democracy is an easy term to throw around, but it is not a simple concept. Is a democracy a system that listens to the majority in all circumstances, or is a democracy a system that respects the rights of all, including minorities?

Regardless, lobbying and publicly presenting a political opinion is central to democracy and protected by our Constitution.

[psycho joe]

I agree, ultimately, the issue of marriage equality is for the Parliament. Although it is for the Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage,

You haven't read the last 17 pages have you?

We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.

What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.

[Keg]

The level of support of those causes differs markedly headmaster. Only one issue has been pushed so hard as to rate an almost daily mention in company emails. Only one issue has had their 'flagship' parade declaration in the Mascot HQ foyer. Only one issue has had such social media exposure. Only one issue has had aeroplanes and GSE equipment coloured in its colours. Only one issue has had multiple videos playing in different areas. Ther is no consistency to Joyce's comments that Qantas is speaking out on SSM in the manner it's spoken out on other issues. Qantas has not spoken out in the same manner. They've spoken out on SSM and rainbow politics far exceeding that they've commented on any other issue- social or otherwise- in the last decade.

[theheadmaster]

You haven't read the last 17 pages have you?

We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.

What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.

Yes, the clear definition of what constitutes a marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. That Act was made in the Federal Parliament under the powers given under s51(xxii) of the Constitution. That does not mean that we have marriage equality. Yes, Parliament has the power to change this Act, as demonstrated by the Howard government. Nothing new here, and consistent with what I stated above.

Your assertion that only a small percentage want to change to SSM is not correct. Granted, the percentage people directly affected by a decision to change the Act is small, however, support for change is either in the majority, or close to it, depending on the polling you look at. As I stated above, one of the tests of a democratic society is not just how it looks after the wishes of the majority, but also how it respects the needs of the minority. I think many people in the Western world 'get' this, and have changed their laws to allow SSM. As I stated above, the ability for people to lobby and express their political views is established as a right under the Constitution. I don't understand your comment about 'threatening' businesses. If the threat is simply to boycott businesses that do not support SSM, or boycott businesses that unlawfully discriminate, I have no problem with that. If the threat is to commit an unlawful act, then that is something that I would not think was appropriate, and ultimately, unhelpful for those seeking change.

I don't agree with your assertion about Howard not changing the definition of marriage, but that is a minor semantic point in the scheme of things. You are correct in that if politicians don't respect the will of the people they are answerable at the election.

While the concept of marriage may have evolved from Judaeo Christian values, Australia is a secular state. As mentioned previously above, s116 of the Constitution points to this secularism.

Regarding MPs and Senators swearing an oath on the Bible, if you read the Constitution you will find s42 states members can take an oath or an affirmation.

Regarding the introduction to the Constitution and prayers to start parliament, this was the result of political lobbying by the churches to the constitutional conventions held in the 1880s - the kind of process you are arguing that Joyce should not be doing now. The issue of the relevance and legality of these prayers in Parliamentary Standing Orders is still an issue that attracts debate. However, given the history of why they are included does not really make much difference to the ability of Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage under s51(xxii), or the prohibition to make laws with respect to religion under s116.

[theheadmaster]

The level of support of those causes differs markedly headmaster. Only one issue has been pushed so hard as to rate an almost daily mention in company emails. Only one issue has had their 'flagship' parade declaration in the Mascot HQ foyer. Only one issue has had such social media exposure. Only one issue has had aeroplanes and GSE equipment coloured in its colours. Only one issue has had multiple videos playing in different areas. Ther is no consistency to Joyce's comments that Qantas is speaking out on SSM in the manner it's spoken out on other issues. Qantas has not spoken out in the same manner. They've spoken out on SSM and rainbow politics far exceeding that they've commented on any other issue- social or otherwise- in the last decade.

And why do you think that is the case? Is there any controversy about the other causes? If there is significant prejudice to overcome, then there is significantly more exposure required to be effective. This does not equate to hypocrisy.

[Keg]

What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?

There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.

If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.

So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?

[unionist1974]

And when the share price crashes and dividends are no longer paid ,who will tolerate these indulgent causes by a CEO that has destroyed the heritage of what was a great Australian Engineering organisation. The envy of the Aviation world , the leaders in Engine maintenance. Dumped , by a little' man" with no respect for his workers. I hope he understands just what a weak , limp CEO he is

[theheadmaster]

What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?

There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.

If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.

So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?

Well, you could start with the prejudice displayed by yourself and others on this thread. The thread was started because of apparent 'outrage' about painting an aircraft to support the Sydney Mardi Gras. The fact that there was this 'outrage' speaks that there is still work to be done here at Qantas. The other issue that has emerged is criticism of the appropriateness of Qantas/Joyce supporting same sex marriage. My response has been to challenge the assertions made by some posting here that this is not appropriate for the CEO of a company. I have argued that Joyce is acting within his responsibilities as CEO. I have also argued that the Constitution has been intrerpreted by the High Court to provide the right to political expression, regardless of whether you are a politician or business person.

So, while I respect your right to be able to express an opinion about these issues, I don't agree with many of the arguments presented about what Joyce should or should not be allowed to do.

[Biatch]

How is this thread still going? Like Jim Jefferies once said.... "If you've got a problem with gay people getting married.... then don't marry a gay person."

[FlightBoy787]

What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?

There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.

If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.

So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?

When I got my commercial licence in 1976. I went to the outback flying. There sightseeing companies and then RPT. I found it then was a real Boys club . .All very straight but I was me. I had to fly that little bit better and be that little bit better to get my colleagues respect and I did. Has some fun asides also after work. Whats it like moments in the outback. Think there is a book there :-)

[psycho joe]

My response has been to challenge the assertions made by some posting here that this is not appropriate for the CEO of a company.

Alan Joyce is trying to use his influence as CEO to stop the people from having a say by public vote. That's not appropriate, and it's undemocratic.

Every other assertion that you've made has already been covered and are mostly non sequitur.

[theheadmaster]

Alan Joyce is trying to use his influence as CEO to stop the people from having a say by public vote. That's not appropriate, and it's undemocratic.

Every other assertion that you've made has already been covered and are mostly non sequitur.

As stated above, a plebiscite is not a binding 'vote'. The Parliament is not bound by the outcome. If there is a vote to change the Marriage Act, it will be held in Parliament as a part of the normal process of passing a bill.

Australia has held two national plebiscites, in 1916 and 1917, regarding conscription. The Parliament has managed to develop policy and enact legislation for the intervening 100 years without reliance on a plebiscite. That is not to say that plebiscites are not a feature of democratic representative government, just that a plebiscite is not a requirement for a democratic outcome to the issue of same sex marriage, or any other issue for that matter. The Howard Government changed the Marriage Act without reference to a plebiscite, as it was entitled to under the powers of s51(xxii) of the Constitution. There is nothing 'undemocratic' about government making or changing laws through the normal parliamentary process of responsible government.

I do not agree that someone expressing a view that a plebiscite is not the most appropriate way of deciding the issue is 'undemocratic'. If you were to look at Joyce's argument, he believes that the public debate that will unfold will be harmful to those who are vulnerable. As I have stated previously, the Constitution gives people the right to express this view. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. CEOs have responsibilities under the Corporations Act. Joyce has not acted outside of these responsibilities. This is not a 'non-sequitur' argument. Just because your views do not align with established legal and political concepts does not make them 'non-sequitur'.

[Wonderworld]

None of the religiously inclined here have said how SSM will affect them.
I wish they would so I can try to understand their point of view.

[AerialPerspective]

The time of day this is posted will make it clear why I'm not posting a longer response. Perhaps more later today. A few excerpts from the dissenting opinions in the US Supreme Court.
At least one of those Justices believed (he has since passed away) that the devil is a real being, that the world is only 4000 years old and that everyone has a right to carry a gun at all times and in addition has read the 2nd Amendment down to the commas to justify ordinary people having assault weapons which inevitably fall into the hands of nut cases who end up using them to kill innocent children en masse. You want to have an argument about the United States' Constitution and their system of government and checks and balances, roll the dice pal because I have been studying it for over 40 years and by your response you alone show you have no concept of what you're talking about.

[AerialPerspective]

Thank you for providing extracts from the judgments of three of the four dissenting justices.

Since 26th June 2015 the law in the United States is as summarised in my earlier post which is the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

For completeness, I have identified the justices of the Supreme Court who made the remarks Keg has quoted and have also included an extract from the fourth dissenting justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas.

THOMAS, J. with whom SCALIA, J. joins, dissenting.

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

SCALIA, J., dissenting

A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

ALITO, J., dissenting

If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims. Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.

There is a legal maxim “Fiat justitia ruat cælum” (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”) signifying the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

The most difficult legal decisions always reach and are made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What has really changed in the United States since 26th June 2015, the date the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)?

Even prior to this decision, thirty-six States, the District of Columbia, and Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court decision has not opened the floodgates. Same-sex marriages were already widespread throughout the USA.

Justice Windeyer’s comment in Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60 that “law [marches] with [developments in] medicine but in the rear and limping a little” could be applied more generally to all legal decisions. The law is slow to adapt and change to changes in society.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

It is hardly a radical departure from what was already happening in the USA. The decision affirms that this process toward same-sex marriages, already well underway in the USA, is underpinned by a secure legal footing.
Not only that, the dissenting opinions set out to characterize the decision as removing Liberty when in fact it was re-affirming that the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, an enumerated right in the Constitution extends to all citizens - how is that taking away a right or liberty???
As for the comment about the Declaration of Independence... absolutely irrelevant as it is not a legal document in a Constitutional sense, it was simply a declaration of war.
Once again, at least one of the Justices that dissented believed that Jesus stood on the shoulders of the 'founding fathers' when they wrote the Constitution - in fact many, including those specifically involved in the Constitution were avowedly disgusted by Christianity and actually any religious belief as they felt it detracted from the liberty of the individual and the first President thought Christianity particularly was an evil that would render the world a better place if it were completely absent from it. Americans wave flags and talk about a 'Christian Nation' when in fact that was the exact opposite of the founding fathers almost to a man... and re-affirmed explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli.

[AerialPerspective]

This is Australia.
It is that is correct but about 80% of the Australian Constitution is based on the United States (line up the Articles and Chapters and you will see that they align in terms of what they cover and many words are similar, along with the separation of powers). As such, US Constitutional thought does have a bearing on the decisions of our High Court considering the similar origins of our entrenched Constitutions and much of the jurisprudence is similar so it is actually relevant and the U.S. Constitution has been cited a number of times in the High Court's opinions and judgements. This is no different to the way that older 'parent' documents such as Magna Carta have sometimes informed decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court because they represent an origin or influence just as the U.S. Constitution does in the Commonwealth of Australia.

[Keg]

None of the religiously inclined here have said how SSM will affect them.
I wish they would so I can try to understand their point of view.

It's been said a number of times already. I'll just keep repeating the first principles.

It affects fsmilies. It affects society. That means it affects me. It's important to point out that there are many who are not 'religiously inclined' who agree with that principle.

People have disputed the principle I'm offering here but consider drug use in the privacy of someone's own home. Using the pro SSM line of argument that doesn't affect me so why shouldnt it be legal too? We have laws on drug use and other issues because we know that some things are important in society.

I keep hearing how 'the majority of Aussies are in favour of same sex marriage'. I'm not convinced. Yes Minister is the definitive meme when it comes to survey results and recent results such as Brexit and Trump's win shows that they're not real reliable I don't reckon the Aussie public has actually engaged fully with the issue or at least had both sides of the issue explained to them.

So a plebiscite is a good way forward I reckon. Funding for 'yes' and 'no' cases- and no doubt the 'yes' side will get considerable funding from other entities also including unions- and that way I can ensure it's not just politicians deciding this issue amongst themselves. Most Christians I know would accept the result of a plebiscite even if we disagreed with it. I'd at least be confident that we had the best chance of the nation engaging with the issue

I also suspect that the reason Labor put the kybosh on the plebiscite is that they have internal polling that suggested it was going to be a close run thing. Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy and so far the threats and hate speech have been against Christians and/ or premises/ groups/ companies that were facilitating them meeting rather than the other way around.

The stupid thing was that had they agreed to the plebiscite, by now the result would have been known and the issue decided. Perhaps gay people would be getting married very soon. Perhaps the true will of the nation would be known.

.

[Derfred]

why is this discussion still going after 16 pages?

Good question.

I would hope, that if and when SSM is enacted, that if the discussion came up again on this forum say 10 or 20 year's later, that the only response would be the sound of crickets chirping.

That would be the response that I would expect today, for example, if someone displayed indigation that Qantas had employed a female pilot.

If PPRuNe had existed back when Qantas employed it's first female pilot, I'm sure we would have had at least 16 pages on the subject.

Society does evolve, but sometimes it takes more than 16 pages to make it happen.

It also takes a lot of community awareness and discussion. Alan Joyce is not trying to undermine democracy by painting a rainbow logo on a jet, he is simply contributing to community awareness and demonstrating that his Company supports the issue (which would most certainly have been approved by the Board and therefore shareholders).

I will say this though, the tone of the last 8 pages is a damned sight better than the first 8 pages, so I'm glad this thread is being allowed to run it's course.

[le Pingouin]

But it has no direct impact on you Keg. Indirect yes, direct no. The only people it directly affects are those wishing to avail themselves of a same-sex marriage.

The plebiscite would have been very ugly - you only have to read some of the more extreme comments here to realise that. The worst opponents would have been attacking homosexuality, not just the subject of SSM.

[601]

marriage equality.

If SSM does ever become legal, it will never ever and never can be equal to marriage as we know it today.

Think about it.

The only people it directly affects are those wishing to avail themselves of a same-sex marriage.

Incorrect.
It debases the institution of marriage that we have entered into and believe in.

Call it whatever else you wish, but don't call it "marriage"

[le Pingouin]

601, maybe in your mind, but not mine. If you think it debases marriage then you must have a very low opinion of the strength of said "institution".

[Derfred]

People have disputed the principle I'm offering here but consider drug use in the privacy of someone's own home. Using the pro SSM line of argument that doesn't affect me so why shouldnt it be legal too?

Keg, in keeping with a previous quote of yours, you need to post at a more civilised time of day when you are more alert. Likening the SSM argument to taking harmful drugs behind closed doors is beneath your intelligence.

Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy and so far the threats and hate speech have been against Christians and/ or premises/ groups/ companies that were facilitating them meeting rather than the other way round.

There's been enough "hate speech" against gays on this very forum to discount your "furphy" theory, but I don't think I've seen any "hate speech" against Christians here.

Imagine if we had a plebiscite about Muslim immigration. Could you perceive any "hate speech" evolving out of that? Do you think that would be good for our society? Do you really think an SSM plebiscite would be any different? If a so-called Professional Pilot's forum has difficulty keeping out the hate, can you imagine what would happen if it was unleashed amongst the masses?

Or, if in fact you are correct that it would unleash more hate against Christians, then perhaps you need to be more careful about what you wish for!

[le Pingouin]

Can you imagine if the ACL or Corgi Barnyardi were let off the leash? I doubt the blow-back would be pleasant.

[Derfred]

What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?

There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. [snip... for brevity]

So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?

Hopefully, what you say is true. Today.

I've been in Qantas long enough to know that hasn't always been the case. I've known S/O's never to make F/O on account of the fact that they were "foolish" enough to come out in public as gay. Also, F/O's never to make Captain for the same reason.

Times have changed. Why? Because people like Alan Joyce have made it known that it won't be tolerated.

It didn't change overnight with a memo from the boss.

It took decades of cultural change, lead by the leaders of Companies, not politicians.

That is no different from what is happening today.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Keg,

You can't really be equating rhe effect SSM has on society, with drug use can you? Your arguments must be getting thin...

It would be good if those people who 'just don't like SSM' could simply say 'I oppose it because I don't like it' instead of trying create fallacious arguments against it.

SSM will and has be shown, to have none of the detrimental effects on society that it's opponents claim it has.

[jonkster]

It's been said a number of times already. I'll just keep repeating the first principles.

It affects fsmilies. It affects society. That means it affects me. It's important to point out that there are many who are not 'religiously inclined' who agree with that principle.


Keg you clearly believe that SSM would effect society and I gather you mean in a negative way. Could you explain more why you believe that and in what ways?

(Not trying to provoke, trying to understand where you are coming from).

I have several good friends who are gay and have been in long term, monogamous same sex relationships (one couple have been together longer than my own marriage).

These couples have had (and continue to have) a positive and supporting role for me personally, for my other friends, for my own marriage and in the lives of my children and as far as I can see for society in general where they are hardworking, caring, generous and compassionate members of society. They are role models for my kids the same as close heterosexual couple friends.

Certainly only positives for me and my family (in my experience). No different from friends who are "officially married" couples.

Where do you see their relationships as being negative for me, my family and society?

[601]

If you think it debases marriage then you must have a very low opinion of the strength of said "institution".

On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of the institution of marriage. The problem is the lack of respect for long established institutions, of which marriage is one.

As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.

[theheadmaster]

On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of the institution of marriage. The problem is the lack of respect for long established institutions, of which marriage is one.

As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.

Prior to the Howard government amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004, marriage was defined in common law. Howard did not like that courts could decide that marriage was, so inserted a definition into the Act that stated 'marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. The result of this is that Parliament now decides the definition of marriage, not the courts. So, if the definition of marriage is changed in the Marriage Act to include same sex couples, then such a union will certainly be a marriage, regardless of what you and I think about it.

[dr dre]

I keep hearing how 'the majority of Aussies are in favour of same sex marriage'. I'm not convinced. Yes Minister is the definitive meme when it comes to survey results and recent results such as Brexit and Trump's win shows that they're not real reliable.

Look at the raw numbers. The US election nationwide polls had Clinton winning the general election by a few points (she did win the overall popular vote by a few points) However the state by state polls a few days prior to the vote has Trump either tied or up by a few points in the swing states like Ohio and Florida. So the polls weren't that inaccurate. Same for Brexit, the last few opinion polls showed a bare narrow lead of 1-2% for Remain and the vote had a slight swing to leave. Plus in Australia with our compulsory voting it make sure it far easier to predict the result, the last federal election had a TPP result within 1% of the final opinion polls.

The point I'm making is every opinion poll I've seen on extending marriage rights for gay couples in Australia in the last five years shows a minimum 65-70% in favour and no more than 25-30% opposed. This isn't just a minor swing it's a huge margin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Polling

Point two, look at the age breakdown in support of marriage equality in this recent poll:
Large majority of Australians (76%) in favour of allowing gay marriage - Roy Morgan Research (http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6707-australian-views-on-gay-marriage-february-march-2016-201607191635)

Support for SSM in the 18-24yr bracket is 94%. Support in the 25-34yr bracket is 83%. Demographics are telling us with the passage of time the overall support for SSM is only going to increase.



I also suspect that the reason Labor put the kybosh on the plebiscite is that they have internal polling that suggested it was going to be a close run thing. Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy

.

Do you have any evidence for that, I haven't seen any suggestion that Labor opposed the plebiscite for that reason?

and that way I can ensure it's not just politicians deciding this issue amongst themselves.

But isn't that how our system of government works? A representative democracy where we elect and pay politicians to pass legislation on our behalf? Why is it we trust them to legislate on matters of life and death like Abortion, Capital Punishment, Euthanasia, Going to war etc without the need for a plebiscite, but now this legislation to change the legal status between an adult couple is so gravely important we need a nationwide opinion poll?
If that's the case we might as well hold a plebiscite once a week to approve any suggested legislation and abolish parliament.
The only reason this country should have national plebiscites or referendums is to either change the constitution (as required by the constitution) or for symbolic things like changing the anthem or the flag.

[Keg]

Well, you could start with the prejudice displayed by yourself and others on this thread.

So let me understand this correctly. Qantas embarks on a political campaign the likes of which it's never previously done and you justify that on the basis of comments I make on this thread in response to the campgaign?

Then you label my comments 'prejudice'? I'll wear that title if you're happy to also admit that many comments on this thread (and in the media, and by Alan Joyce) are also prejudiced against those who disagree with SSM. The principle cuts both ways.

Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.

Still, part of me is actually quietly pleased with the direction this is taking. It's given plenty of pro traditional marriage proponents the opportunity to put forward our point of view. It's also shown me that there is much more support for the traditional marriage stand point than I previously thought.

[theheadmaster]

Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.

This is your opinion, which you have a right to state, however you are wrong. I have clearly stated perviously why Joyce is quite entitled to do what he is doing. If you can state why my view is incorrect, I am happy to hear it.

[Keg]

Alan Joyce is not trying to undermine democracy by painting a rainbow logo on a jet.......

Nice little straw man right there.


I will say this though, the tone of the last 8 pages is a damned sight better than the first 8 pages, so I'm glad this thread is being allowed to run it's course.

You've got a better memory than I to even remember the first 8 pages! :ok: Like you though I'm pleased thisnthread has been able to run its course.

A couple of pages back somone asked me my thoughts about the legal status of same sex relationships.

This is personal opinion. It may not fit a legal definition somewhere so my apologies if I'm not legally precise.

The law exists to protect us. It does this by regulating certain things. When it comes to marriage law one of the important aspects is to protect the weaker member of the relationship. To ensure that in the event of marriage breakdown the weaker of the parties is not left destitute. My view of de facto relationships is the same. The law should exist to protect the parties in the event of relationship breakdown. In this respect the law should be equal for both married couples and de facto couples. It should be the same for hetero de facto relationships as well as same sex de facto relationships.

I think headmaster it was that pointed out that the threshold test for same sex de facto relationships was more difficult to demonstrate. If that's the case it should be changed. There should be no differences in the legal status of these relationships. The weaker member of the relationship needs to be protected. If there is no 'weaker' member then at least the law provides for an 'orderly' dissolution of the relationship.

Of course, a marriage means that we don't need to demonstrate that we've been in a de facto relationship for a period of time. The legal protections are effective from the day of the marriage. In fact, I would not have been protected under law prior to being married as I was not in a de facto relationship. Many people these days actually are legally protected prior to being married as they've been in a de facto relationship- often for a year or more- prior to getting married. I'd be stunned were a same sex couple not already protected under the de facto legislation prior to them getting 'married'.

Should a de facto couple (hetero or same sex) be able to 'register' their relationship? Probably. If that assists with the administration in the event of a relationship breakdown or death of one of the members. I would have thought a good will would have covered the death part though. If it doesn't then there's no reason why that part shouldn't be tidied up. People will no doubt argue the admin steps I've described here are essentially a marriage in all but name only. The distinctions though are things I've articulated previously.

Once upon a time Anglican churches baptised whomever asked for it. These days the church is a bit more discerning about it and actually require a declaration of faith in order to baptise a child or adult. Perhaps if SSM gets up we'll find the church move in the same way for marriage also.

Of course, no doubt some quarters of the gay lobby will be unhappy that 'the church' will refuse to solemnise the relationship and already we've seen that Labor is considering making speaking out against SSM illegal as no doubt that will 'offend' somone also so we will see if this really is about 'equality' or not in the future.

[Keg]

This is your opinion, which you have a right to state, however you are wrong. I have clearly stated perviously why Joyce is quite entitled to do what he is doing. If you can state why my view is incorrect, I am happy to hear it.

Ok. I'll say it again. I don't feel it's appropriate for companies to be engaged it socio-political issues- particularly when they're as divisive as this issue is.

I've never argued that Joyce can't speak on behalf of Qantas. I've argued that he shouldn't on this issue and others related to it. I'm not sure how that makes me 'wrong'- at least from the legalistic line you're pushing. We agree to disagree. I'm cool with that.

[theheadmaster]

So, would I be correct that you agree with my legal view, but you point is that 'just because he can, does not mean he should'?

[le Pingouin]

On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of the institution of marriage. The problem is the lack of respect for long established institutions, of which marriage is one.

As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.

You need to do a bit of research to discover that what you perceive as "marriage" hasn't always been the way it currently is.

Marriage is defined by the Marriage Act, not by personal or any other definition, so when the Act is changed to include other than heterosexual unions it will indeed be marriage.

I could have a personal definition that says anyone married by a religious minister isn't married as it was under duress. "We won't accept your marriage unless you do it with us" isn't free choice.

[michigan j]

I would like to thank QANTAS management and staff for supporting both the Australian War Memorial and Opera Australia...

Are these causes OK?

[Lookleft]

Absolutely-I look forward to aircraft colour schemes showing the AWM and Opera Australia being made public if there is to be any consistency in the use of QF property for promotion.

[601]

You need to do a bit of research to discover that what you perceive as "marriage" hasn't always been the way it currently is.

Historically from about 1250–1300 CE "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. That was long before the Government clarified the definition in the Marriage Act to reflect society's long standing view of a "marriage."

In the opinion of a lot of Australians, that definition still stands.

[psycho joe]

I would like to thank QANTAS management and staff for supporting both the Australian War Memorial and Opera Australia...

Are these causes OK?

That depends. Was this an attempt to use influence as a CEO to change the foundation of our society and an attempt to circumvent a democratic vote?

Or is the question reductio ad absurdum?

[Keg]

So, would I be correct that you agree with my legal view, but you point is that 'just because he can, does not mean he should'?

Correct. A company's opinion on SSM is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Like all the actors banging on about Trump, et al, no one gives a stuff what you (as in the Royal 'you') think.

By all means champion the importance of getting the right person for the job. By all means encourage girls to consider engineeering and piloting (funny how they never champion girls to consider taking on the baggage handler role, or blokes to take on the F/A or HR roles where the females outnumber the males). By all means advertise that you're an inclusive workplace. Don't try and and tell me (and others) that we're not upholding the 'Aussie value of fairness' because we don't endorse, support and/or promote the political issue that is SSM. That's actually none of Qantas business.

In fact, let me put it this way. Lots of people have told me how SSM has 'no effect' on me, my marriage and society. Using that logic SSM therefore has 'no effect' on Qantas business. Therefore they really have no need to comment on the issue.

[Keg]

I would like to thank QANTAS management and staff for supporting both the Australian War Memorial and Opera Australia...

Are these causes OK?

Are these causes political in nature? No? Therefore they're OK to support.

What if Qantas came out as 'pro life'? How do you think anyone in Qantas who'd had an abortion may feel? Conflicted? Worried? Concerned that if they said anything promabortion that they'd be targeted and intimidated?

Can you see the correlation here?

[dr dre]

Historically from about 1250–1300 CE "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. That was long before the Government clarified the definition in the Marriage Act to reflect society's long standing view of a "marriage."

In the opinion of a lot of Australians, that definition still stands.

Marriage since 1300 has also been defined as being a relationship between two people of the same race only, or of the same social class or faith, or who's partners were chosen by their parents, or where unions between cousins were very common, or where multiple partners inside or outside of marriage were common and accepted, or where marriages were almost solely performed in churches only, or where women have had lesser legal rights, or where having children was mandatory, or where no fault divorce didn't exist, or where a woman couldn't vote or legally own property, or where a man could legally assault his partner.

Some of those definitions have only changed very recently (Queensland only criminalised assault in a marriage in 1989!).

The notion that marriage has always been the same for hundreds of years is a complete furphy. It has evolved and changed as society has evolved and changed and will continue to do so.

[garpal gumnut]

I've come to this thread late so forgive me if I go over ground covered. The major population similar but not the same as Australia who decided on this issue were the Irish. It passed on a plebiscite with the usual virulent pro and anti, religious and rainbow; opponents forming about 40%, probably 50% as the rainbow were better organised and religion is not all that popular in the Land of Saints and Scholars atm. This left 50-60% of voters. The main reason it passed was that many of the 50-60% had family members who were gay, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, sons and daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends who were gay. Ireland though diluted by the EU is still a reasonably homogenous society and much of the discourse was conducted outside of the media, amongst friends and family. We in Australia unfortunately have a very fractured political entity, poor family strength and a media which thrives on the rare, the freaks and the identity or socially committed outwith of family ties. I do not know how a plebiscite would go here. A NO vote would be more problematic as the rainbows are more committed socially and economically and would plague the issue. A YES would be the best, but Australia being so polarised atm, the delay in having the plebiscite, fed by the rainbow, would mitigate against this outcome. That is my take on it anyway.

[Derfred]

Keg:

Alan Joyce is not trying to undermine democracy by painting a rainbow logo on a jet.......
Nice little straw man right there.

It is not a straw man argument at all. Numerous posters above have implied that a large company such as Qantas are attempting to undermine democracy by painting a jet and vocalising their support for SSM - apparently in a primitive attempt to undermine a plebescite and therefore democracy. You may not have suggested it youself (I think you may have, but I'm not prepared to trawl through the thread to prove it),, but my point in that remark was in response to other posters in the thread, not you.

But I note you have picked out one line from a long and considered post which I reproduce below. You have not made any effort to discuss any other points I have made.

So, to follow your theme, that's a nice little cherry picking argument right there.

I'd really like you to discuss the issues intelligently, otherwise I might get bored and devote more time to my traditional marriage.

Keg, my question was to Ken, not you, but since you've re-entered the debate:

Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.

It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.

You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.

So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.

Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:

---

I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.

The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.

You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.

I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.

So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.

Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.

I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.

So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.

---

But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.

The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.

With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.

Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.

So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?

In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?

If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?

Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?

---

Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.

[601]

Marriage since 1300 has also been defined as being a relationship between two people of the same race only, or of the same social class or faith, or who's partners were chosen by their parents, or where unions between cousins were very common, or where multiple partners inside or outside of marriage were common and accepted, or where marriages were almost solely performed in churches only, or where women have had lesser legal rights, or where having children was mandatory, or where no fault divorce didn't exist, or where a woman couldn't vote or legally own property, or where a man could legally assault his partner.

The notion that marriage has always been the same for hundreds of years is a complete furphy.

And the one constant through all that which you described is that "marriage" has been between a man and a woman.

[Derfred]

And the one constant through all that which you described is that "marriage" has been between a man and a woman.

And the one inconstant through all of that is that there is is no "traditional" sense of marriage, at all. The concept of "marriage" is not traditional in your sense at all.

In fact, every religion has their own version of marriage. And those who subscribe to no religion do too (and we appear to be in the majority). So which version do you submit the Australian Governnent should subscribe to? Yours? Forsaking all others?

Do you decry the secular constitution upon which our nation is based?

[601]

Australian Government should subscribe to?

Easy - between a man and a woman.

[mrdeux]

I too fly for QF. Some of my friends, and many of the people I fly with are gay. If I am permitted to vote in a plebiscite I will vote for allowing them the same rights as everyone else. Should have happened ages ago.

Nevertheless, I am not a fan of company property being used to push what is mostly a political issue.

[Beer Baron]

Keg, you (and others) have made repeated claims that your problem is not what Alan Joyce’s opinion is, but that he is using Qantas and Qantas property to promote them. In fact you suggest it has never happened before.

Ok. I'll say it again. I don't feel it's appropriate for companies to be engaged it socio-political issues- particularly when they're as divisive as this issue is.

I've never argued that Joyce can't speak on behalf of Qantas. I've argued that he shouldn't on this issue and others related to it.

Qantas embarks on a political campaign the likes of which it's never previously done

But you conveniently ignore, or forget, the Recognise campaign to constitutionally recognise Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that Qantas strongly supported. They didn't just paint 1 aircraft, they put the Recognise logo on 31 aircraft!!

In the media Qantas group executive Olivia Wirth said;
The livery would build on the airline’s longstanding celebration of indigenous culture. As an Australian icon, Qantas is proud to lend its support towards ensuring the first chapter of Australia’s story and the people who forged it are recognised

Yet where were the howls of complaint?? Where were the 20 pages of debate? How dare Qantas try and tell people how to vote in a referendum (a plebiscite’s big brother)?
There wasn't a peep. Yet suddenly now people are fired up.

It is clear that your exception to Alan Joyce speaking in Qantas’s name is not that he does it, but that you don't believe in what he is fighting for. Therefore your argument lacks authenticity.

[jonkster]

To be fair to Keg, that raises complicated messy questions. What happens if you are employed by a company and that company then wants to put forward a public position on a social question that you genuinely disagree with?

I certainly don't share Keg's position on the SSM issue but believe him to sincerely hold it. What does he do if his employer wishes him to help promote the issue he doesn't agree with?

There is no simple answer here. If we want our society to allow diversity of opinion, what happens when your opinion on a social issue differs from that of your employer?

Should you have to promote a view you don't hold? Should you be allowed to express your opposing view? Should you resign? Should you just hide your beliefs?

I sincerely don't hold Keg's views, they are so different from how I see the world but I also see a dilemma here. I think people should be able to express their views and not be made to compromise them providing it is done in a way that doesn't promote vilification or hate.

How that could be achieved here I don't know.

and FWIW I would be more than happy to fly a plane painted in the livery that has prompted this thread and have a very different view than Keg's but I think this raises awkward free speech issues.

[dr dre]

And the one constant through all that which you described is that "marriage" has been between a man and a woman.

No, at times it has been defined as being between one man and several women (polygamy), and as well since 2002 marriage has been described as being between two people of the same gender. Let's not forget the English speaking nations (sans Australia), Western Europe and even places like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa have legal marriage equality. It isn't a concept that is never existed before. A good chunk of the developed world has it, and the sky hasn't fallen in.

[Lookleft]

Beer Baron- you actually hilight Keg's and the others(I assume that's where I fit) quite well.

The key statement is the one you included "Qantas embarks on a political campaign the likes of which it's never previously done"

I don't remember AJ championing Indigenous rights personally. I don't remember the Qantas logo prominent at the Sorry day marches. The referendum regarding Indigenous inclusion in the Constitution has never been held. If it is such a strongly held view by the Qantas executive why is not still being pursued. Personally I wouldn't even know what the Recognise logo looks like but I don't recall any aircraft having the Roo holding the Indigenous flag.

Your post is absolutely correct, but directed at the wrong people-double standards and authenticity indeed.

[psycho joe]

Quote:
The livery would build on the airline’s longstanding celebration of indigenous culture. As an Australian icon, Qantas is proud to lend its support towards ensuring the first chapter of Australia’s story and the people who forged it are recognised
Yet where were the howls of complaint?? Where were the 20 pages of debate? How dare Qantas try and tell people how to vote in a referendum (a plebiscite’s big brother)?
There wasn't a peep. Yet suddenly now people are fired up.

It is clear that your exception to Alan Joyce speaking in Qantas’s name is not that he does it, but that you don't believe in what he is fighting for. Therefore your argument lacks authenticity.


Was Allan Joyce, along with 19 other CEO's attempting to use their perceived power and influence to demand a change to the definition of "indigenous"?

[Hoofharted]

It's not just the livery change or Joyce using the brand to further a particular agenda, there is also the use of company email to push the issue internally. Prior to Mardi Gras my company email was bombed on a daily basis promoting the gay380, the new 330 livery and messages urging me to join in on "rainbow" week.

I have no agenda either way on the marriage issue and I certainly have no bias against anyone based on their sexuality. I do however have a very large issue on a large corporate machine blatantly trying to coerce it's workforce into thinking/believing/supporting a particular belief or thought process that has absolutely nothing to do with corporate governance or SOP. Could this not be viewed as company sanctioned harassment or bullying? What if my beliefs (as some of my work colleagues) ran contrary to the message being promoted via the company's emails? Where is the "safe work place" for these people?

I will vote yes when the plebiscite finally arrives as I have many friends and relatives that are affected by this decision and who truly feel that they would like the opportunity to "marry". However, I must confess to feeling very anti during the company's overt campaign in social engineering.

[Beer Baron]

I don't remember AJ championing Indigenous rights personally. I don't remember the Qantas logo prominent at the Sorry day marches. The referendum regarding Indigenous inclusion in the Constitution has never been held. If it is such a strongly held view by the Qantas executive why is not still being pursues . Personally I wouldn't even know what the Recognise logo looks like but I don't recall any aircraft having the Roo holding the Indigenous flag.

Well you may not remember it but Qantas has pushed for Indigenous reconciliation for many years and continues to do so. As far back as Dixon’s days Qantas were demonstrating their overt support for the issue:
In addition, from 2009, Qantas will have Qantas Cabin Crew make an Acknowledgement of Country announcement on all international flights landing in Australia on Sorry Day in February, during Reconciliation Week in May and during NAIDOC Week in July.

There is a current Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-18 on the website.
Qantas officially launched its Reconciliation Action Plan today, becoming only the third Australian major corporate to lodge a formal Indigenous Reconciliation Plan www.reconciliation.org.au/raphub/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/reconciliation-action-plan-2015-2018.pdf (http://www.reconciliation.org.au/raphub/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/reconciliation-action-plan-2015-2018.pdf)

And no, there is no “Roo holding the Indigenous flag” but there have been numerous jets painted with an Indigenous livery or name.

Was Allan Joyce, along with 19 other CEO's attempting to use their perceived power and influence to demand a change to the definition of "indigenous"?

No, but he was championing a change to the Australian Constitution! A far more important document.


So, significant input on socio-political issues including; painting planes, public statements, involving staff in making announcements and a stated goal of changing the constitution. But did I hear any complaints then?????

[kaz3g]

So let me understand this correctly...<big snip>

Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.


With such strongly held principles, you and those others who are so deeply offended will undoubtedly immediately resign your positions and leave this enclave of activists so you are no longer tainted by their proclivities.

Kaz

Edited out "Christian" principles because I realise that was unfair to the many Christians who embrace a wider theology.

[Keg]

Your formatting was a bit hard to follow Derfred so I may not have gotten this 100% accurate but it's in good faith.





Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.

It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. As an example to the principle, abortion is an issue that affects us all in society. It changes how we view ourselves, how we view others, how we view life and how we view infants. Euthanasia is the same. Irrespective of whether it has an immediate, direct impact on me (which SSM won't as I don't expected I'll be invited to a gay wedding any time soon) it has an impact on society and therefore me. As a result don't expect me to 'get over it'. I care about society and where it's going. You can describe it as a 'hang up' all day but that doesn't make me wrong.





So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights.

What about polygamists? Why are they not deserving of the 'rights' you're demanding for people of the same sex? Who are you to tell them the can't marry whomever they want? What about those people have 'genetic sexual attraction'. And want to marry? Apparently this is becoming more common with the increasing number of broken homes and kids growing up without knowing their biological parents or siblings and meeting them later in life? Do they deserve to marry whom they love?

This is the principle you're championing when you champion 'equality'. Are you consistent with your principles? Do you think legalising these types of relationships in the form of marrriage has a detriment to society? Do you think legalising these relationships will affect society positively? Do you think legalising these relationships as marriage will not have an impact on your 'marriage' and how it's perceived in wider society? I guess you'll only be affected if you choose to be psychologically affected. (I'm not trying to sound prissy or rude here, just trying to be blunt).


---

I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.

The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.

You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.


Sounds like a sad state of affairs. I've seen certain aspects of it- certainly the name calling of 'poofter'- but nothing approaching the level of violence you're talking about.


I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.


The church hasn't been perfect in the past in defending people who needed defending. I think the church has grown considerably in speaking out firmly against violence and hate whilst still proclaiming its stance on marriage and so on. That's why the hate speech these days is far more likely to come from the SSM lobby than the church- unless of course you're one of the narrow minded lot who view any stance against SSM as 'hate speech'. (The royal 'you', not you specifically Derfred).



So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.


I think I get it now. I say I'm concerned for society and want to uphold 'traditional marriage'. The picture you see in your head when you hear or see the words 'traditional marriage' is husbands boozing on with their mates at the pubs, cheating on their wives, giving a backhander to their wives and kids if they talk back, and raising kids to call gay people 'poofters'.

Let me be very blunt and clear. That is NOT 'traditional marriage'. That is NOT biblical marriage. Biblical marriage does NOT view wives and children as possessions and nor does the Bibke suggest that our role in life is to treat others poorly. The picture you have articulated of marriage and society is NOT the type of society I am talking about.



But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.

The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn.

Lol. 'Almost' be regarded as an excerpt from the bible? They're basically words direct from Jesus mouth.

Matthew 22:37

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [/I]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Luke 6:31

Do to others as you would have them do to you.



Matthew 23:12

For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

It's actually worth reading all of Matthew 22 and 23 to get the correct context to those statements too.



And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.

I've just given you the quotes from the bible which dates back to the first century AD. Sure, over time some people have valued 'tradition' over God's word in the bible and distorted that for their own purposes. The Bibke though has been pretty fixed since the various books were written and then those books collated at the Councio of Nicaea.

Remember too that Jesus was a bloke who sat down and engaged with the lowest of society. The poor, the young (who were not held anywhere nearly as highly in the first century as they are today), the crooked (tax collectors), the outcast (prostitutes and sick). Note though he did NOT say to them. It's ok, you can keep living that way. No, he called them to change the way they lived and follow Him. He didn't say to the prostitute that she was ok to choose her path. He told her to follow Him. Loving your neighbour doesn't mean saying 'OK' to the way they live their life, it means lovingly telling them of a better way.



So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political?

I've got problems with companies championing what they do in the workplace. If a horse and cart company back then wanted to champion the awesome benefit they get from their female employees then they can do that. I don't think it's the companies responsibility to then take it further and say 'you're an tell other people what they should think regarding a socio political issue though isn't



Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?



It's interesting that you bring this up. Until Christendom, virtually every culture in the world viewed women as possessions. In Roman times adultery was asssumed by men and punishable by death for women. They had no possessions, no worth. Christianity was hugely and massively counter cultural at the time regarding its treatment of women. Jesus first appeared at his resurrection to women (and if you were going to make up a story about a risen deity, at the time you would not have the deity appearing first to women.... way to make the story less than palatable given their testimony was worthless). Despite the (non biblical) teaching of some Christian scholars through the ages, the teaching of the bible has been unchanged. Wives are equal partners in the 'body of Christ' (ie the church) and equal partners in marriage given that relatjiosho is supposed to mirror the relationship between Jesus and the church. (There are some nuances that I'll leave aside here but happy to comment on if asked).

So that women are viewed 'equally' at all is a Christian notion. Even when you look around the world now, in most non western cultures women are not regarded as equal of men. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity and thus we have the equality of today because of Christianity and despite some non biblical mis steps along the way.

As an example, this is Paul's letter to the church in Galatia. Paul was executed about AD62.

"In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in common relationship with Jesus Christ"

So how do you interpret that as to what the bible teaches about women?

I think the important notion to understand when discussing the churches past failures is that biblical teaching on humanity is that we are flawed. We have a perfect example in Jesus and we have a book that gives us all the guidance we need to work through every issue we face but I'm still a rebellious sinful person and I still rebel against God and what I know is good for me. I can only keep going back to His teaching on the issues. His teaching on women is that they are 'partners in the body of christ'.



In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?

No. I don't reckon they do. What tends to happen is that leaders (sometimes church leaders, sometimes rulers of kingdoms) drifts away from Scripture as their source of wisdom and put a personal slant on it. The KKK is a great example of people putting using a passage out of context, a passage poorly from Aramaic or Greek to their native tongue to justify their political aims. to en slant on it. I hope that in all of this discussion thanpeope see I've been pointing back to not my personal slant but what the bible teaches.


If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?

Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?



For somone who said they didn't get intend to get personal these two paras are actually pretty nasty and insulting. The options you've put forward are not the only options available. Nor is it helpful to characterise my feelings towards a gay friend who married his partner, and another gay friend who only recently came around to supporting SSM as 'gay pricks'. That's just not the way I roll- and nor is it the way every other Christian I know characterises the issue.

My kids know the Christian teaching on not just marriage but life, death and Jesus. If they choose to walk away from that, that's their choice. Having walked that path from my late teenage years to late 20s I understand only too well how that looks and how to love my children and support them through that journey. Recall my earlier comments about Jesus and prostitutes. Lov Ng them didn't mean endorsing what they did. It meant walking with them as they faced up to their choices in life.

I will not tell my children of proudly of flying the rainbow roo. They'd know it was a lie.

Maybe in my latter years I will lament those lost in their own desires. For me I will simply continue to persevere to serve God. Everything else is chasing after the wind.

I know it's been a long read but for those that have persevered I thank you for your time. It's taken me a good couple of hours to put this together. I appreciate the opportunity to put forward what I pray is a biblical and faithful account of the Christian position. I did so not because I want to thump everyone over the head and certainly not because I'm trying to push for everyone to bend to my beliefs- I'd hope you'd do that through your own reflection and search for Truth. I did all thismsimply because Derfred asked for m thoughts on the matter and asked about biblical principles.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend everybody.

Go the Bloods!

[Keg]

Beer baron. I actually commented on the recognise campaign very early on in this discussion and my reservations about it.

There is no way the recognise campaign and the tiny symbol on 31 aeroplanes goes even close to approaching what the company has done with SSM and the Mardi Gras.

[Keg]

With such strongly held principles, you and those others who are so deeply offended will undoubtedly immediately resign your positions and leave this enclave of activists so you are no longer tainted by their proclivities.

Kaz.

Oh puh-lease. The default response of the closet totalitarian.

I've resigned previously from an organisation that was heading in a direction i thought was dangerous and that I could no longer support. That was about safety and care of minors. The royal commission showed me how correct I was on that isssue.

Beyond that I'm mystified why the actions of my leadership that I disagree with on a social political issue warrant me resigning? Maybe when someone starts telling me to make a PA in support of the cause it'll come to that but until that time it's my workplace too and I've very right to be there.

[Lookleft]

Once again BB your examples don't show the same level of commitment to the issue that SSM does for the QF executive.

In addition, from 2009, Qantas will have Qantas Cabin Crew make an Acknowledgement of Country announcement on all international flights landing in Australia on Sorry Day in February, during Reconciliation Week in May and during NAIDOC Week in July.

Why not domestic as well? It would be more relevant. SBS make acknowledgements to country every day,why not include it on the safety video.

Indigenous paint schemes go back to the nineties. I don't think it was primarily for the awareness of Indigenous issues but more about the promotion of Qantas and Australia. Not that dissimilar to the Retro Roo schemes. Not criticizing it, but pointing out it wasn't the result of any firmly held views of the executive of Indigenous rights.

The referendum was never held to change the Constitution. I don't see AJ continuing to push the issue for a referendum. Once again there is not the same level of commitment as the SSM issue. I don't see posters advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous rights at the terminals like I see with the SSM issue.

[Beer Baron]

Tiny symbol
Hardly tiny, no smaller than a rainbow Qantas logo of this topics origin. http://https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantaslink-unveils-new-recognise-aircraft-livery (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantaslink-unveils-new-recognise-aircraft-livery)

The referendum was never held to change the Constitution. I don't see AJ continuing to push the issue for a referendum. Once again there is not the same level of commitment as the SSM issue. I don't see posters advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous rights at the terminals like I see with the SSM issue.

The plebiscite has also not been held. The referendum is still government and opposition policy and is working it's way to a final proposal. It is still Qantas's policy to support it as detailed in their Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-18.

I haven't seen posters in terminals supporting SSM and I certainly haven't seen a 38 page document detailing Qantas's continued support for it.

I'd say they appear far more committed to reconciliation than SSM. But no complaints from anyone there. Odd.

[Pinky the pilot]

Keg; Your post #388 described my opinion on the subject far better than I could have put it myself.:ok:

For this, I thank you. There was only one thing upon which I would take issue with;

Go the Bloods!

:*:D

[FYSTI]

There is a more concerning aspect the debate, the censorship and suppression of opinion. I fear a western version of the Cultural revolution 2.0, version 1 occurring in China in the mid 1960's, with an estimated death toll of between 30 million & 45 million people perishing on the alter of ideology. This time, the deaths will be metaphorical, we have moved beyond such brutal methods of indoctrination and thought control. We now have a much more humane system where peoples lives, families & careers will be destroyed instead.

If you have anything other than the approved though, you will pay a very heavy price. There appears to be no place for any other than the approved belief system. I think George Orwell wrote a once again popular book (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/24/us/george-orwell-1984-bestseller-trump-trnd/) about it.

It is no longer acceptable to just keep your opinions to yourself. You must remove yourself from any organisation that holds ANY unacceptable belief system or be purged from the system. There appears to be a far larger agenda at work... One wonder if LQBTI is just the leading edge of this revolution.

I say this as a devoted atheist who doesn't give a damn who sleeps with whom, as long as it is consensual, legal & non-compulsory, but I am very concerned where this will end. To be clear, I have a problem with the methods employed by the cultural warriors, not what happens between the sheets. Where will it end? Perhaps Orwell provided a guide?

Discriminating in order to solve discrimination - this suggests another agenda.

From this weeks Australian: Christians under attack: gay rights activists target IBM executive (http://archive.is/m4sjc)


Activists have criticised the IT giant and Sydney-based managing partner Mark Allaby, suggesting that his role on the board of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, an internship program for young Christians, is incompatible with IBM’s public support on the issue.

The social media campaign comes after the same activists shamed Adelaide brewer Coopers into pledging allegiance to Australian Marriage Equality after its ties with the Bible Society were *exposed.

Michael Barnett, convener of Jewish LGBTI support group Aleph Melbourne, and Rod Swift, a Greens candidate in the 2014 state election, have targeted IBM with a barrage of messages via Twitter in recent days, accusing the company of hypocrisy for *allowing an employee to be *involved with “an anti-LGBTI *organisation”.

“A bad look … that IBM managing partner Mark Allaby sits on the anti-LGBT Lachlan Macquarie Institute board,” Mr Barnett *posted on Thursday.

The next day he followed with: “As an LGBT champion @IBM*Australia, why did you employ a board member of a high-profile anti-LGBT organisation.”


http://i.imgur.com/MJlGkYR.jpg

“If you are having a bet each way @IBMDiversityANZ then you must justify to your staff and customers why your guy is on their board,” he wrote.

It is not the first time Mr Allaby, a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors who handles IBM’s financial services *clients across Australia and New Zealand, has been targeted for his association with a religious organisation.

Last year, when employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, he was pressured into standing down from the board of the Australian Christian Lobby, which opposes changes to marriage law.

Both PwC and IBM are active supporters of Australian Marriage Equality, and their chief executives were among 20 corporate leaders to sign an unprecedented letter lobbying Malcolm Turnbull to legalise same-sex marriage, revealed in The Australian last week.

The letter has sparked heated debate about the role of business in lobbying on social issues, with conservative frontbencher Peter Dutton telling business leaders to “stick to their knitting”.

However, the increasingly *aggressive tactics being employed by some marriage equality activists has highlighted the risks for corporations — and their employees — in taking a position on *divisive political causes.

Leading anti-discrimination lawyer Mark Fowler said employees with religious beliefs in conflict with their employers’ stand on marriage equality were particularly exposed. “In NSW and SA there are currently no laws protecting individuals from expressing their religious beliefs,” Mr Fowler said. “Nor are there religious protections for *individuals under commonwealth laws.”

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton said the ACL, which helped set up the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, denied that the organisation was “anti-LGBTI”.

“Quite frankly we are tired of this slur being used to intimidate people because of their beliefs,” Mr Shelton said. “Corporate Australia is obviously free to have and express views on political matters.

“Sadly, same-sex marriage activists are intolerant of different views and have co-opted some in the corporate sector to assist them in enforcing this to the point where people fear for their jobs.

“All Australians, including corporate Australia, should openly and forcefully condemn every instance of bullying and intimidation.”

Mr Barnett defended his role yesterday, arguing that when an organisation such as IBM employed an individual in a high-profile leadership role who did not espouse company values, a disparity emerged.

“I have no desire to see IBM sack Mark Allaby. I want the conflict to go away,” Mr Barnett told The Australian.

“Mark Allaby can make whatever decisions he needs to resolve this conflict, and if IBM needs to assist with that process then they can do that.
“My goal is to see IBM, and any other pro-LGBTIQ organisation, remain strong to their stated values.”

Mr Barnett said he had nothing against Mr Allaby personally but his links with the Australian Christian Lobby meant he was a “target for equality campaigners like me”.

IBM did not respond to questions about whether staff were free to engage with external organisations, including religious groups, outside of their employment with the company. “We will not be responding on this,” an IBM spokeswoman said.

Mr Allaby, who lives in Sydney, did not return calls.

[601]

The social media campaign comes after the same activists shamed Adelaide brewer Coopers into pledging allegiance to Australian Marriage Equality after its ties with the Bible Society were *exposed.

This gents, is getting beyond the pale.

If now appears that if one holds a view contrary to your view, one can resort to blackmail?

[ruprecht]

This gents, is getting beyond the pale.

...or beyond the Pale Ale...

Coopers is a business and can sponsor whatever it likes. Customers are also free to choose to buy or not buy their beer. I doubt many are swayed by social media activism.

That video, however, was cringeworthy... there should be a blanket ban on anyone involved with it! :p

[le Pingouin]

601, beliefs have consequences when they have impact on other people. No-one is saying you can't believe what you wish, but as soon as you express those beliefs & use them to deny something to others don't expect it to be without consequence.

[psycho joe]

No-one is saying you can't believe what you wish, but as soon as you express those beliefs & use them to deny something to others don't expect it to be without consequence.

Just like Allan Joyce attempting to deny people the vote.

[le Pingouin]

A voluntary, non-binding plebiscite isn't a "vote", it's an opinion poll. How did we get into this mess in the first place? The government just upped and changed the Marriage Act in 2004. No plebiscite, no "vote", no nothing other than politicians unilaterally making a decision to actively discriminate against part of society.

We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.

[framer]

I'd just like to say I am impressed with the contributions to this thread ( from most posters) and am enjoying the debate. I don't have too much to say on the subject but am enjoying the thread. Thanks to the mods for keeping it going.

[Stationair8]

Does anyone know any good gay forums, the reason I ask they might have a section on aviation?
Pprune seems to have moved away from flying into some sort of de facto gay sight.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

When are we going to see the artwork on the B73?

[psycho joe]

A voluntary, non-binding plebiscite isn't a "vote", it's an opinion poll. How did we get into this mess in the first place? The government just upped and changed the Marriage Act in 2004. No plebiscite, no "vote", no nothing other than politicians unilaterally making a decision to actively discriminate against part of society.

We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.

Our parliament is meant to be a place in which there is a free exchange of ideas. Proposed legislation is meant to be hotly debated and passed or rejected based on its merits. For big ticket items, especially where parliament remains divided a smart parliament will take the issue to the people during an election. This is demanded by the electorate and assumed under our democracy.

On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.

The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.

On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.

The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. In my opinion anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to fit her description. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. I accept that this is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.

Democracy.

[AerialPerspective]

Our parliament is meant to be a place in which there is a free exchange of ideas. Proposed legislation is meant to be hotly debated and passed or rejected based on its merits. For big ticket items, especially where parliament remains divided a smart parliament will take the issue to the people during an election. This is demanded by the electorate and assumed under our democracy.

On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.

The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.

On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.

The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to change. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. This is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.

Democracy.
Sorry but equality is equality. Allowing one class of persons (opposite sex couples) to marry but not allowing same sex couples to do so is inequality.
By the logic of 'robust debate' and 'democracy' are you therefore of the opinion that Abraham Lincoln should not have pushed for the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery but should first have held a plebiscite to see if African Americans should be given the same rights as white Americans because to do so without a plebiscite would run the risk of doing something without community support??? It could just as easily be argued up until that time that African Americans not being slaves and having the same rights as white Americans could 'devalue' white American rights. Equality is equality, it doesn't need a damn plebiscite to affirm it's validity. People in opposite sex marriages will get over it, just as they did when inter-racial marriage was legalized. All the same arguments were made against that too.

[psycho joe]

Sorry I was editing for spelling and clarity as you cut and pasted.

The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.

Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.

[AerialPerspective]

Sorry I was editing for spelling and clarity as you cut and pasted.

The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.

Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.
Actually I didn't 'cut and paste'... I have been studying U.S. history and government for 40 years or more and have read many books on the subject as well as being very conversant with the Civil War and Lincoln and that entire period and the revolution and attitudes to slavery.
You seem to have missed my point.
Abolishing slavery was about equality. Lincoln did not hold a plebiscite, because it was OBVIOUS it was about equality. The Civil War was not fought on the basis of slavery, that fact is obvious from just about any history book but rather on the subject of a State's right to determination without undue interference from a federal entity which the Southern States felt they had joined and could leave just as easily. Slavery was invoked by Lincoln (whom I admire by the way, so this isn't a comment on him) to turn the war into something worth fighting for, freedom and equality. These are different times and a different society. With the exception of what happened at Eureka which had a positive overall implications, we haven't tended to be a polity that picks up a gun every time we disagree with something.
The comparison was about equality. We are not a democracy and neither is the United States, we are 'representative democracies', we elect representatives to make the decisions for us, we expect them to conduct vigorous debate and concentrate the study and knowledge of the topic at hand to come up with the best solution. We do not elect them to ask us every time something is too difficult and we expect them to not have to debate at all when the subject is a matter of equality under the law. That is all SSM is, it's about equal rights to marriage by same sex couples.
I was not showing contempt for human suffering at all, I was drawing an analogy, I can post the dictionary definition if you like (since you think I cut and paste everything) or you can look it up.
Slavery was disgusting, vile and inhuman and so was the resulting inequality that it enforced. We are supposed to have learned from those historical mistakes and recognise inequality in all its forms, not just the ones we find comfortable.
Let's not forget, the bible was often held up as evidence for the righteousness of slavery as well. These are all facts, not contempt. I show contempt for a book that was written in such a way that it promotes inequality and discrimination and in such a way that it was able to be used to justify slavery, the KKK's actions and the fight against civil rights and now gay marriage.
I'll ask what I asked at the beginning of this unbelievably long thread again, what the hell has this got to do with aviation and why is this thread still going...

[psycho joe]

1.You cut and pasted my post. That's what I was referring to.
2.Slavery in the US ended at the conclusion of the Civil war.
3.This is Australia and not the United States.
4.Australians determine the laws and culture of Australia.
5.The federal government went to the election pledging a plebiscite.
6.I couldn't care less how conversant you are with US law.
7.If I were a betting man I'd bet that neither do most Australians.
8.Arguing a link between slavery and SSM is sophism.
9.Why stop at slavery and not go the full reductio ad absurdium and liken marriage with the holocaust?

[jonkster]

No analogies.

When I was growing up homosexuals were considered fair game by many to assault, they could be (and were) imprisoned, were routinely vilified and discriminated against. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

You could kill one of them and have your crime reduced from murder to manslaughter if you claimed you felt threatened by their sexuality (that legislation was only stopped *this year* in Qld and *is still in force* in South Australia!). Why? Because they are homosexual and don't deserve to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

Being outed as a homosexual was a legitimate cause for you to lose your job. Because you were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Fathers would throw their sons out of home and cut them off from family because they were homosexual.

Many police often refused to investigate violence against homosexuals, in some cases were actively involved in the violence. Because they were homosexual and didn't deserve the same treatment as heterosexuals.

It was not uncommon to hear people saying AIDs was a good thing as it would kill off homosexuals. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same right to life as heterosexuals.

The lack of acceptance or outright hostility they faced drove many to suicide. Because they were homosexual and felt rejected by society.

People were forcibly given 'treatments' including electro convulsive therapy to 'cure' them.

Or were told they were choosing to be homosexual as a selfish 'lifestyle choice'. (As if anyone can choose which sex they find attractive. I certainly couldn't decide to be sexually attracted to a gender I don't have that attraction for - it just wouldn't work! and if anyone would consider it 'selfish' to choose to be vilified, hated, assaulted and discriminated against).

This was not a century ago. This is recent history. It wasn't everyone who treated them like that but I certainly recall it being pretty common and not a situation particularly criticised until more recent times.

Is it as bad now as it was then? No. Does that mean everything is fine?

I still hear many people today say many of the same vile things about homosexuals today as were being said back then. There is still a stigma many fear or have to face for being homosexual. Because they are homosexual.

Children still agonise over their sexuality, fearing rejection and ostracism because they find they find who they are attracted to doesn't fit the common mold. They didn't chose to be like that, they just are. Bad luck. You got born wrong. Suffer...

I have never had to face any of that crap.

Meanwhile there are people saying homosexuals are out of line and are threatening the rights of others by wanting to have similar legal rights in their closest relationships as heterosexuals have or wanting to have their relationships to be accepted by society.

Any wonder there are some who feel a tad militant? Does that make over reaction right or acceptable? No but it certainly makes it understandable. Particularly when people claim homosexuals are infringing on heterosexuals rights.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Psyco Joe,

Why do you keep saying 'this is Australia not America ' as if that is a valid argument? It simply indicates a closed mind an a cheap attempt to shut down a valid argumentative point.

The country might be different, but the basis of the argument is the same.

Inequity is inequity in any country.

[psycho joe]

Allthecool

I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people. That has nothing to do with the USA.

If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you.

Yes marriage is exclusive.

As a man I can't join a women's club. If I get the the definition of a "women's club" changed to include men, then it's no longer a women's club. It's now something else. It's not inequality. And it's not the same thing as slavery. You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like.

Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.

[theheadmaster]

Psych joe, it looks like you have googled logical fallacies. Unfortunately, your statements calling out those fallacies have generally been incorrect, and you are not immune from using a few yourself.

For example:

I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people.

This is an example of what is known as ‘loaded language’. The CEO is not ‘forcing’ anything. He is adding to the political debate, just as you are here. As I have stated previously, this is a right that is provided by the Australian Constitution. A plebiscite is not the same as a ‘vote’, as it is non-binding. Election ‘promise’? Binding or non-binding? Yes, I agree they did take that policy to the election, however, like all policies, they have to be able to get the legislation through the Parliament.

It is difficult to take your argument about wanting a democratic process seriously when you have stated that if the Marriage Act is changed to allow same sex marriage, you would not accept anything other than your view of marriage as a real marriage. Your argument here is a classic example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.

If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you

While the magnitude of the issue is different, the species is not. Both issues are about the denial of human rights. Discussion on this subject has taken place previously in this thread. However, I note response to that discussion was This is Australia, so I felt you may well have missed the point entirely.

You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like

As has been clearly stated previously, the definition of marriage is stated in the Act. If the Act is changed to include same sex couples, then marriage it will be.

On the question of Howard changing the Marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society.

In Australia, the separation of powers has the legislature make legislation and the judiciary interpret. So, as I stated in previous posts, the definition of marriage prior to the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act was a common law definition. That is, it was determined by the courts. Since society was changing, and so was the definition, Howard inserted the definition into the Act to stop the socially accepted definition becoming fact.

Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.

So this is a new requirement (changing the goalposts fallacy)? I would expect that if Parliament decided to change the definition, the words would be discussed and decided as you described in post #403. If you are asking for a suggestion, I would propose changing the definition from:

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life

To something like:

Marriage means the union two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

[theheadmaster]

Does anyone know any good gay forums, the reason I ask they might have a section on aviation?
Pprune seems to have moved away from flying into some sort of de facto gay sight [sic].

It might surprise you to know, but there are actually a few people posting on this thread are pilots and have other professional qualifications that make them qualified to provide the advice and opinions they have in this thread.

As the issue is about Qantas and the feelings (of outrage to support) for the pro Sydney Mardi Gras and associated pro same sex marriage policy, it is appropriate to discuss it in this forum.

While on the subject of advice, those who are AIPA members may wish to read (or review) the article on responsibilities while posting on social media. Others may wish to google responsibilities of using social media and serious misconduct. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, just friendly advice.

[le Pingouin]

psycho, a conscience vote means not tied to a party line. The member could vote according to their personal beliefs or they could vote according to what they think the voters in their their electorate want.

The definition of marriage was changed by legislation to reflect the presumed values of the majority of society in 2004. All assumption (your words), no plebiscite. Why are you demanding one now? Societal values change and 2004 set the precedent for altering the definition of marriage legislatively. Why not spend a shed load less on an extensive opinion poll and use those results?

Debate has been stifled and howled down? Really? Some proof from Hansard please.

[601]

We do not elect them to ask us every time

But they did this time at an election and won the election with the electorate having full knowledge that the plebiscite would cost $x.

So why are those who want SSM now asking the government to break an election commitment?

Why not direct their anger against those who voted against the plebiscite?

Why did these CEO's direct their letter at the Government instead of the Opposition?

Why have none of the posts on this forum directed their calls to the Opposition to allow the plebiscite?

Is it just a blatant political ploy by the Opposition to prolong the debate and drag it out to the next election hoping that they could make political gain on the back of SSM?

It could have all been done and dusted by now and Qantas would not have felt the need to paint the aircraft and we would not be seeing this thread.

[601]

The definition of marriage was changed by legislation to reflect the presumed values of the majority of society in 2004.

A lot of presumption in there.

[le Pingouin]

I don't recall there being extensive research announced to demonstrate majority support of exclusively opposite-sex marriage. Are you aware of any from 2004? I do however recall the legislation being changed in haste to block state same-sex legislation.

[obira]

I don't think psycho joe has googled logical fallacies at all but has assumed that because reductio ad absurdium (sic) contains 'absurd' then it must be a false form of reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum (note the correct spelling) is not a logical fallacy but a valid form of argument used by mathematicians (aka proof by contradiction) and philosophers going back to the ancient Greeks.

[obira]

BTW the coalition have not been given a conscience vote on this issue at all. Any member of cabinet who votes for marriage equality will lose their position in cabinet.

[psycho joe]

If you are asking for a suggestion, I would propose changing the definition from:

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life

To something like:

Marriage means the union two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

This illistrates the revisionist dilemma. For every definition of marriage there is exclusion. By the arguments used here exclusion equates to "inequality" (which equates to slavery.)

It stands to reason that the only definition that would be acceptable is one that has no boundaries, whereby the definition of marriage is anything to anyone at any time to the exclusion of none.

Or no marriage at all.

[jonkster]

Firstly, the exclusion being talked about is exclusion from legal rights in relationships because of gender. It is not an argument to remove 'any exclusivity' to anything - that is a straw man.

Secondly, we all use analogies to try and see commonalities in issues so we apply common principles. Marriage and slavery are not the same thing but can, as analogies, illustrate how society has changed its attitudes over time (as can universal sufferage, child labour laws, indigenous recognition, separation of church and state etc are all things that can be used to compare how society values have changed and to illustrate common ways to approach new issues). There needs to be care to make sure we don't push analogies too far or apply them inappropriately but I can see why looking at them helps build a better idea of how to approach issues.

Thirdly, I can sympathise with people who hold deeply held convictions about social issues that differ from their employers and feel they are being forced to support a social issue they disagree with.

This thread has two things going on and that clouds the arguments.

a. what happens when an employee has a moral objection to a social issue that their employer is promoting?

b. is SSM something that should be recognised in Oz?

(for me question a is answered: really not sure and b: yes)

[theheadmaster]

Not at all Psych Joe.

The argument about not allowing same sex marriage is that it denies a section of the community a human right. That exclusion is a decision that someone else has made to deny them the opportunity of entering into a marriage.

The definition of marriage that I offered was simply a minimalist change to the existing definition that removes the words man and woman and replaces with people. The 'exclusion' referred to in the definition is a reference to the type of relationship between the people. It is entered into voluntarily, therefore there is no human rights issue and cannot be equated to slavery. The term 'voluntarily entered into' also carries with it the requirement for the parties to have the capacity to provide that consent. This removes the false argument that it is a slippery slope to anyone marrying anything.

And yes, there are other sections of the Marriage Act and criminal code that prevent certain people from entering into such a relationship. That is not inconsistent with a rights based approach.

[psycho joe]

Denied a "human right".... The last bastion of the scoundrel, like pulling the race card. The Alamo (for US reference) of the argument fall back position.

So there you have it folks - Traditional marriage is a crime against humanity.

22 pages of round and around the mulberry bush. Every twist and turn that could be argued has been. In some cases multiple times. All to get to this point.

It's been fun.

[theheadmaster]

Denied a "human right".... The last bastion of the scoundrel, like pulling the race card. The Alamo (for US reference) of the argument fall back position.

So there you have it folks - Traditional marriage is a crime against humanity.

22 pages of round and around the mulberry bush. Every twist and turn that could be argued has been. In some cases multiple times. All to get to this point.

It's been fun.

Once again, not at all. The human right argument was made by Asteroid 2578 at around page 16 and onwards of this discussion. 'This is Australia' I believe was your response to the argument at the time. It is not a fall back position at all. It is an interesting proposition that people arguing for the rights of same sex couples are considered the 'scoundrels'.

[601]

BTW the coalition have not been given a conscience vote on this issue at all. Any member of cabinet who votes for marriage equality will lose their position in cabinet.

References please!!!!!

[Popgun]

Its a shame we (as a nation) are spending so much precious time, money and energy on this subject.

When nearly every other liberal democratic nation on the planet have already changed their laws it would be naive to believe that day wasn't coming here in Australia too.

It may be sooner or it may be later...but in the end, despite our varying individual belief systems, it wiil be.

We have far more pressing issues to spend time focussing on.

PG

[Keg]

Speaking of democracy. The issue of SSM has been put to Parliament more than 15'times since 2004. On virtually all of those occasions both sides of Parliament decided to uphold traditional marriage.

This current Parliament is widely considered the first one for which a conscience vote of both sides would result in SSM getting up. It wouldn't have previously.

Interestingly, it's Labor that is insisting on a binding vote on its members over this issue. It's seen one Labor senator resign over the issue and may see other long serving MPs replaced if they vote with their beliefs rather than what they're told by head office.

[Keg]

The 'rights' angle isn't consistent. I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners? Why are you not championing the 'right' of Mormons and Muslims to have multiple wives? Are they not deserving of 'equal rights' in the same way that gay people are? If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.

So enough about 'rights'. Unless you're advocating for polygamous relationships you're actually full,of crap when you speak about 'equal rights'.

[jonkster]

I guess I am full of crap then.

I believe my gay friends who are in committed loving relationships should have similar rights extended to them as I have with my marriage. I see that as fair and just. Happy to discuss why but don't think you really are interested.

[Keg]

So you're not prepared to extend those 'equal rights' to others? Talk about bigotry.

See how this works?

Have you been reading the last bunch of pages Jonkster? My thoughts on the issue are pretty much out there. But please, feel free to tell me why you feel your gay friends should be able to get married using 'equal rights' as the reason but those rights shouldn't be extended to polygamous relationships? I'm open as to how you justify that as 'fair and just'.

Or is it perhaps that 'rights' are actually subject to some other test and as a society we do actually feel like we can (and should) restrict them in certain circumstances.

[jonkster]

Yes I have read the last bunch of pages, posted in them in fact.

I have tried to be polite, restrained and honest in my posts, expressing my views without being nasty, politely asking for clarification for other's views as I don't get why they think the way they do and at one point expressed concern for people like you, caught up in a situation where their employer is asking them to support a view the employee sincerely rejects.

Like I said, happy to discuss why I believe what I do but as I am both full of crap and a bigot for holding my views and engaging in the conversation, I gather you really are not interested in what I have to say.

[Lookleft]

If you look at the acronym LGBTIQ (I am still waiting for an answer on what the difference is between G and Q btw), an amendment to the Marriage Act will automatically impinge on the rights of the B community. By definition they have the capacity to love females and males equally therefore they should be given the right to marry one of each as its all about equal love right? Limiting the Marriage Act to one person is restricting the rights of all people who have the capacity to love more than one person at a time. Changing the Act does not rule a line under the discussion it only takes it in a different direction.

[jonkster]

If you look at the acronym LGBTIQ (I am still waiting for an answer on what the difference is between G and Q btw)

need to know? Google is your friend... :p

what the difference is between G and Q? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+difference+between+gay+and+queer)

:ok:

[Keg]

Fair enough jonkster. Don't engage then. I put it out there that you can't demand 'equal rights' and not demand polygamy under the same principle. I reckon that's being intellectually dishonest. In short, it's crap. Twice now I've pointed that out. Twice you've not explained how you and others can reconcile promoting SSM on the basis of rights can but stop short of extending that principle to polygamous relationships or even somone who is bi who wants to marry somone of the same sex as well as somone of the opposite sex.

If you can't see my facetious use of the word 'bigoted' and see the principle behind my use of it in the context I have then by all means disengage.

[Lookleft]

Thanks for the link Jonkster and now I know why no one has tried to put it in their own words. I now understand that the whole LGBTIQ movement is akin to a socialist ideology and peripherally a movement for individual rights. The Q people don't really consider themselves G people, a bit like the difference between Joe and Leon. It also highlights that the Safe Schools indoctrination is not about bullying but about spreading the ideology to the young.

[theheadmaster]

The 'rights' angle isn't consistent. I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners? Why are you not championing the 'right' of Mormons and Muslims to have multiple wives? Are they not deserving of 'equal rights' in the same way that gay people are? If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.

So enough about 'rights'. Unless you're advocating for polygamous relationships you're actually full,of crap when you speak about 'equal rights'.

I don't see the inconsistency at all. This discussion is not about polygamy. Is there a push to have such relationships recognised as marriage? If so, then it would be entirely appropriate to take a rights based approach. Without having put my mind to the issue, my personal observation of polygamy was while on duty in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan. In that context it was associated with the subjugation of women. While I have lived in the United States, I have not had any exposure to the Mormon version of polygamy and whether there are associated issues with the denial of rights. So, if the question is asked, looking through the lens of rights is an appropriate way of deciding if the issue is worth pursuing. Right now, I don't know the answer to that question.

Regarding your previous discussion on the complex and emotive issues of euthanasia and abortion, I think a rights based approach is also helpful. I actually have taken the time to study these issues in the context of utilitarian ethics. I don't see an inconsistency with the ethical approach to these issues with views presented in support of same sex marriage, but probably best left for another discussion.

[reivilo]

Limiting the Marriage Act to one person is restricting the rights of all people who have the capacity to love more than one person at a time..

Wrong.

Bisexual persons can indeed fall in love with people from both sexes. However just like gay or straight people, falling in love usually occurs only to one other person at the same time. Therefore a bisexual person will normally be just in either a relationship with someone of the opposite or from the same sex, but not with both at the same time.
By the way, this is the most common misconception about bisexuals, so I dont blame you for being a bit ignorant about it.

And there we might have the argument against polygamous relationships. Marriage imho is a loving, voluntary, bonding of two persons. Because we as humans fall in love with only one other person at a time.
I'm not an expert in polygamy but for what I've seen of it, usually it's about one male having a relationship with, or maybe better; 'owning' multiple women. I've not yet seen any example of one female owning multiple males in polygamy. Therefore in my view it is a form of surpression of females and totally has nothing to do with love between two persons.
However, maybe I'm wrong and in the future I have to change my opinion about polygamy.

For now I just really don't see why this should hold back SSM?

[framer]

I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners?
Correct me if I am wrong but don't people who wish to be polygamists have 'equal rights' as it stands? Ie whether you are someone who wants to marry two or more people, or you are anyone else, you both have the same rights applied in Australia....... you can't do it.
If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.
Suggesting that the logical conclusion after SSM is that Polygamists will also want equal rights is illogical.
In Australia everyone has equal rights surrounding polygamy, rape, paedophilia, beastiality, and drink driving, you can't do it no matter who you are.

[obira]

References please!!!!!

Sure, here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/11/same-sex-marriage-coalition-party-room-rejects-free-vote-for-mps

The communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who supports same-sex marriage, had earlier warned the meeting about the risk of government disunity if frontbenchers were forced to resign for backing the change.

Tony Abbott warns colleagues not to vote for same-sex marriage (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-warns-colleagues-not-to-vote-for-samesex-marriage-20150811-gix1h2.html)

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned his ministerial colleagues they would have to resign from the frontbench if they were to vote in support of same-sex marriage
The Coalition party room voted against having a conscience vote on same-sex marriage by about 60 votes to 30 on Tuesday night, but about half of Mr Abbott's frontbench voted against this position.
Mr Abbott said on Wednesday that it is "the standard position of our party that if a frontbencher cannot support the party's policy, that person has to leave the frontbench".


Keg said:
Interestingly, it's Labor that is insisting on a binding vote on its members over this issue. It's seen one Labor senator resign over the issue and may see other long serving MPs replaced if they vote with their beliefs rather than what they're told by head office.

Labor has had a conscience vote on this issue since 2012 and this will continue for the life of this parliament.

The Coalition has never had a free vote on this issue.

[le Pingouin]

The ol' slippery slope argument eh Keg? Next thing you'll be doing a Barnyardi and mentioning sheep ;-)

Seriously, if polygamists want to mount a case they're quite free to. But that's not the subject of this discussion. It's about monogamous marriage between adult homo sapiens sapiens. Introducing anything further is for the express reason of muddying the waters.

Traditional marriage already has "rights" with respect to who you can marry - with few exceptions we're free to marry the adult of the opposite sex of our choosing, regardless of colour, creed or social standing.

[Keg]

I don't see the inconsistency at all. This discussion is not about polygamy.

No. Not about polygamy per se. Everyone knows that were we arguing for the 'right' to marry multiple people that the Aussie public would put the kibosh on that in an instant. So the pro SSM try to limit the discussion to preclude polygamy as part of the discussion even though the rights you champion are equally able to be claimed by polygamists and GSA people who wish to have their relationships recognised in law.

You are the one who has kept banging on about providing gay people with the 'right' to get married. It's a point that you and others have raised multiple times. It's important for me and probably the rest of Australia to understand where this 'rights' issue can lead to. If you're going to argue that principle I can't work out why you won't jump in with both feet and actually fully defend the principle you're espousing.

Like I said, it's intellectually dishonest to espouse SSM on the basis of 'rights' but to not discuss whether this 'right' to be married be extended to other relationships.

Not sure how it's illogical framer. Gay people want the 'right' to 'marry whom they love'. Why can't Mormons and Muslims 'marry whom they love' even if it's multiple people. It's the exact same principle.

To show how it's not illogical, ACT Greens convenor doesn't like the Greens and Australian Marriage Equality restricting the definition of marriage to two people:

Simon Copland, who is political editor of the gay magazine FUSE, ... said: “I am now seeing major queer organisations and queer activists develop exclusive habits, excluding those who they think don’t fit the mainstream gay and lesbian model. For example, after some publicity around the issue, marriage advocates from Australian Marriage Equality and the Greens recently (came) out strongly against the idea of polyamorous marriage. “The institutional queer movement has become dominated by upper- to middle-class wealthy queer activists . . . ensuring a select few get equal access to heteropatriarchal systems.”

UK Greens in the wake of same sex marriage in the UK

Former Green party leader Natalie Bennett has revealed she is open to the idea of legalising three-way marriages... She replied: 'At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people... We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation on this issue.'

From 2013 the Polyamorous Action Lobby (PAL).

PAL recently started a petition which reads:

The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.

Illogical? The only illogical thing is to NOT be able to see polyamory as an extension to the 'rights' principle being espoused to justify SSM.


Bisexual persons can indeed fall in love with people from both sexes. However just like gay or straight people, falling in love usually occurs only to one other person at the same time. Therefore a bisexual person will normally be just in either a relationship with someone of the opposite or from the same sex, but not with both at the same time.
By the way, this is the most common misconception about bisexuals, so I dont blame you for being a bit ignorant about it.

reivilo, who are you to define who a bisexual may fall in love with? What if they want to marry both people? It may only happen to 1 in 100 bisexual people but I still don't get why you would want to prevent them to right to marry whomever they choose? Who are you to prevent them from the same 'right' that heterosexual people (and presumably in the future) gay people have?

It's not a 'slippery slope' le Pingouin. It's actually the exact same principle. I'm stunned that people on this thread have used virtually the exact same words to promote same sex marriage that I'm now using now to 'promote' polygamous marriages can't draw the parallel- and see the irony. Perhaps it's a wilful distortion because the SSM advocates understand the implications as to how the Aussie public is likely to view SSM if they comprehend the full extent of the 'rights' argument.

[theheadmaster]

The problem that I see with your approach Keg, is that from where I stand, it appears that you try to use logical argument to support a view that you have already formed. My view is that you can use a rights based approach, or a utilitarian ethics based approach, and 'discover' the answer. I genuinely meant it when I stated I had not turned my mind to the polygamy question. I am happy to apply a utilitarian approach to rights and accept what answer emerges. Either way. I have not pre-determined an answer that I have to twist an argument to achieve. As I stated, my personal observation of polygamy was associated with the denial of rights for women. That may be a universal consequence of polygamy, or it may not. Let the discussion occur if it really is an issue. I am not afraid of the answer either way.

Regarding the rights being denied on either side of the same sex marriage debate, I don't agree with the arguments that state that current marriages and families will have their rights denied by allowing same sex couples to marry. This disagreement is not just uninformed opinion, but the result of formal research on the subject. So, on balance, the question of SSM is that of denial of rights not allowing it, with no associated denial of rights by allowing it. Polygamy is a more complex issue. My concern is not so much about how allowing it would affect the status of my marriage, but what rights would be affected by those within the polygamous marriage.

[framer]

Illogical? The only illogical thing is to NOT be able to see polyamory as an extension to the 'rights' principle being espoused to justify SSM.
I think the word 'equal' is important if the rights thing is going to be discussed as a principle.
Equal rights.
All Australian adults have equal rights regarding
1/ choosing their religion
2/ practicing Polygamy
3/ choosing whether or not to have children
4/ driving while drunk
5/ getting married..............hang on......

All I'm saying is that the argument of equal rights can probably be applied to SSM quite successfully but it can't be applied to Polygamy because equal rights already exist on that matter. If they wanted to push for Polygamy the argument would have to be something else.

[le Pingouin]

Keg, the only people who think it's a logical extension are the opponents. Maybe that says something.

As I said, the traditional version of marriage is already rights based, making your argument moot.

[Keg]

Headmaster. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Whilst I acknowledge that you haven't previously considered the polygamy issue and haven't fully yet, it appears that you're quite open to viewing it as on a 'needs' basis? The logical conclusion to your position seems to me that that if some people want their polygamous relationships recognised and called marriage then what harm is done? Either way, I still see it as an extension of the same rights principle.

framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. If 'equal rights' in the context of SSM are important for people to 'marry the person whom they love' then why should it be prohibited for polygamous relationships? The only change to that sentence is the word 'person' to 'people'.

Le Pingouin, yeah. It says that SSM proponents are scared about what happens if the 'rights' genie of the polygamous people gets out of the bottle. Hence the denial of the principle.

In using polygamy as an example I've used the same principle that many people have used to argue for SSM- that of 'equal rights'. I've used the same language and in some cases the exact same words. Use of phrases such as 'who are you to deny someone the right to marry whom they like' have been prevalent in this topic and levelled at those of us who disagree with SSM. Like I said a number of pages ago. I'd have a lot more respect for those arguing 'rights' if they were at least firm in their defence of the principle. That they're not, well, maybe that too says something.

So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument. I've been told that I'm in the minority (not unusual with that one). I've been told SSM isn't about polygamy- I get why the SSM lobby don't want to include the issue of polygamy. So far though no one has taken on the rights issue. Headmaster has indicated that he'd consider it and I don't want to put words into his or her mouth to confirm that's the case.

[framer]

framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage.
I think I see where we view this part of the discussion differently.
I think that equal rights do currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. It doesn't matter if you're the Prime Minister, a rubbish collector, gay, straight, male, female, Christian or Hindu.......you can't do it. Ie equal.
Australians also enjoy equal rights regarding running a red light.
If someone wants to push for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage they will have to use an argument other than 'equal rights' ( same for those with a penchant for running red lights) .
So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument.
I've given you the reason why I think the same argument can't be applied but you couldn't see my logic.
I've tried again above .
Cheers

[theheadmaster]

Headmaster. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Whilst I acknowledge that you haven't previously considered the polygamy issue and haven't fully yet, it appears that you're quite open to viewing it as on a 'needs' basis? The logical conclusion to your position seems to me that that if some people want their polygamous relationships recognised and called marriage then what harm is done? Either way, I still see it as an extension of the same rights principle.

framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. If 'equal rights' in the context of SSM are important for people to 'marry the person whom they love' then why should it be prohibited for polygamous relationships? The only change to that sentence is the word 'person' to 'people'.

Le Pingouin, yeah. It says that SSM proponents are scared about what happens if the 'rights' genie of the polygamous people gets out of the bottle. Hence the denial of the principle.

In using polygamy as an example I've used the same principle that many people have used to argue for SSM- that of 'equal rights'. I've used the same language and in some cases the exact same words. Use of phrases such as 'who are you to deny someone the right to marry whom they like' have been prevalent in this topic and levelled at those of us who disagree with SSM. Like I said a number of pages ago. I'd have a lot more respect for those arguing 'rights' if they were at least firm in their defence of the principle. That they're not, well, maybe that too says something.

So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument. I've been told that I'm in the minority (not unusual with that one). I've been told SSM isn't about polygamy- I get why the SSM lobby don't want to include the issue of polygamy. So far though no one has taken on the rights issue. Headmaster has indicated that he'd consider it and I don't want to put words into his or her mouth to confirm that's the case.

It really does look like you are trying to distract the argument with the 'slippery slope' argument. I don't think SSM proponents are ignoring the issue because they don't like the answer, I just think it is not an issue they are concerned about. I really think that the polygamy argument is a distraction, not because I am scared of tghe outcome, I just don't see the relevance to the discussion.

To be clear, on polygamy, my concern is about the dental of rights for those in the relationship, and open to discoverying any other rights that may be denied by allowing it. If no rights are denied, if women (or men) are not subjugated by the arrangement, then I don't have any prejudice against it. It would not change the nature or commitment I have to my own marriage. It is not something that I would contemplate for myself. Would I argue for it? If there was a portion of the population that had been marginalised, attacked, mistreated and abused because they have not had their needs accepted and needed support? Yes. If not, probably no.

[jonkster]

Fair enough jonkster. Don't engage then. I put it out there that you can't demand 'equal rights' and not demand polygamy under the same principle. I reckon that's being intellectually dishonest. In short, it's crap. Twice now I've pointed that out. Twice you've not explained how you and others can reconcile promoting SSM on the basis of rights can but stop short of extending that principle to polygamous relationships or even somone who is bi who wants to marry somone of the same sex as well as somone of the opposite sex.

If you can't see my facetious use of the word 'bigoted' and see the principle behind my use of it in the context I have then by all means disengage.

OK if you say your use of bigot and full of crap was hyperbole and not meant to be offensive then I am sorry I reacted as I did. Fair enough.

How I read your argument above: you say that if I am arguing for the extension of legal recognition (ie marriage) to cover same sex relationships to give homosexuals equality, then I must also argue that there should be extensions of those laws to cover any form of relationship (your example is polygamy but I have heard other even less socially accepted forms of relationships used in similar arguments) to prevent discrimination. Otherwise I am being intellectually dishonest in claiming I want to stop discrimination.


or more simply put: if making the legal definition of marriage looser would make it less discriminatory, I should want it to be it as loose as possible so as to avoid as much discrimination as possible and give more rights to people.

If however I don't want to make it as loose as possible and want to only extend it 'a bit', I am guilty of shallow and contradictory thinking (or as you put it, my argument "is full of crap" and can be discarded).

Am I understanding your position correctly? (if not tell me)

Let's assume I have got the gist of what you are saying.

I know some here do not want to use analogies however I think they can be used to find general principles, providing you don't get too bogged down in the analogy as to miss the point.

Suppose (as an analogy) we went back to a time in Britain when marriages could only be performed by the Church of England, the Quakers, or under Jewish law. Any other form of marriage was not recognised. Any children born from relationships which were not married by those 3 religious groups could legally be considered as illegitimate.

That is a definition of marriage that existed into the 1800s in Britain.

Was it discriminatory? I would say so. Bad luck if you were Roman Catholic. But it is a clear definition and was how it was defined in law at one time.

My ancestor Jonkystre was outraged by this and would write long missives with his quill on parchment and nail it to trees saying "we shouldst loosen that definition because it discriminates against ye Catholics and ye Bretheren and people of no faith etc and infringes on their ryghts"


Ol' Kegge however, my ancestor's nemesis would write beneath Jonkystre's rants:
"If ye want to stop discrimination ye bygit, why should you stop at letting Catholics marry in their own churches? Why not also allow polygamy etc - to stop Mormons from being discriminated against? If you want to let Catholics marry to stop unfairness, then you should want also polygamy or you arguments are fyll of crappe ye bygit!"

The argument Ol' Kegge uses is identical to the one you use against me is it not? (if it is please correct me). There was a definition of marriage, it was restrictive, some wanted it loosened, why, if those people were thinking consistently and rationally, didn't they also want it loosened to cover polygamy?

So... Yes I do want to broaden the legal definition to give rights to more people.

I *do not* however say it should be made as loose as possible.

I believe our laws should broadly reflect society's views of what is just and fair.

I believe there is a broad belief in society that people who want to enter into same sex monogamous relationships are not a threat to society, that they have been unfairly discriminated against and should be able to have their relationships treated equally under the law, just like heterosexual relationships are. I do not see society arguing broadly for polygamy (or other stuff) in the same way.

If society's values change, so should the laws. Just in the same way Britain changed their laws in the later part of the 1800s to reflect a broader definition of who could marry.

That is why I say I want SSM as it gives rights to people - so is my argument intellectually dishonest or full of crap?

[PukinDog]

Actually I didn't 'cut and paste'... I have been studying U.S. history and government for 40 years or more and have read many books on the subject as well as being very conversant with the Civil War and Lincoln and that entire period and the revolution and attitudes to slavery.
You seem to have missed my point.
Abolishing slavery was about equality. Lincoln did not hold a plebiscite, because it was OBVIOUS it was about equality. The Civil War was not fought on the basis of slavery, that fact is obvious from just about any history book but rather on the subject of a State's right to determination without undue interference from a federal entity which the Southern States felt they had joined and could leave just as easily. Slavery was invoked by Lincoln (whom I admire by the way, so this isn't a comment on him) to turn the war into something worth fighting for, freedom and equality. These are different times and a different society. With the exception of what happened at Eureka which had a positive overall implications, we haven't tended to be a polity that picks up a gun every time we disagree with something.
The comparison was about equality. We are not a democracy and neither is the United States, we are 'representative democracies', we elect representatives to make the decisions for us, we expect them to conduct vigorous debate and concentrate the study and knowledge of the topic at hand to come up with the best solution. We do not elect them to ask us every time something is too difficult and we expect them to not have to debate at all when the subject is a matter of equality under the law. That is all SSM is, it's about equal rights to marriage by same sex couples.
I was not showing contempt for human suffering at all, I was drawing an analogy, I can post the dictionary definition if you like (since you think I cut and paste everything) or you can look it up.
Slavery was disgusting, vile and inhuman and so was the resulting inequality that it enforced. We are supposed to have learned from those historical mistakes and recognise inequality in all its forms, not just the ones we find comfortable.
Let's not forget, the bible was often held up as evidence for the righteousness of slavery as well. These are all facts, not contempt. I show contempt for a book that was written in such a way that it promotes inequality and discrimination and in such a way that it was able to be used to justify slavery, the KKK's actions and the fight against civil rights and now gay marriage.
I'll ask what I asked at the beginning of this unbelievably long thread again, what the hell has this got to do with aviation and why is this thread still going...

I hate to interrupt this lively discussion, but...

It's great you know some American history but you seem to have an enormous blind spot in your Civil War and pre-Civil War history during your 40 years of study re societal norms at that time and how religion/the Bible played a role in the question of slavery, it's acceptance/rejection, and the notion of Equality.

The Abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement, both during Colonial times (the pacifist Quakers and Mennonites had already outlawed slavery for example) but especially during the Second Great Awakening during the 1830's when the radical anti-slavery elements were born was largely founded, organized, and grew due to Bible-based religious beliefs and fervor, and evangelical Methodists, Presbyterians, etc were at the forefront of the movement. The idea that the Civil War, which really began in the Kansas Territory (Bleeding Kansas) years before the election of Lincoln and attack on Ft. Sumpter, was about slavery wasn't something Lincoln pulled out of his hat, he tapped-into an existing societal movement and changes. A large portion of society in the North and some in the South already viewed slavery as a "sin", hypocritical of the philosophy the country was founded on, and that belief was largely spread to the populace through churches and religious-based writings.

The frontier war begun in the Kansas Territory during the late 1950's pitting already-organized Abolitionist Northerners who went there to settle and oppose pro-slavery elements from the South doing the same to decide via popular vote within the Territory whether Kansas was to be a free or slave state set the stage for the larger war to trigger with the election of Lincoln.

Intellectual honesty or a real knowledge of U.S. history would force one to acknowledge the major and core role the Bible and religious beliefs historically played in the Abolitionist, anti-slavery movement in the U.S. and the eventual rejection of slavery by society at large.

In U.S. history at least, the Bible had far less to do with "promoting" slavery (as you keep insisting with your repeated references to Kluckers etc) as it did with giving birth, growing, and giving traction to the forces that eventually eliminated it due to the view of it's "sinfulness" based on Bible scriptures. Yes, this flies in the face of the Hollywood cliche' of a bible-toting slaveholder, but those are historical facts and most Hollywood-types never made it past high school. The supposed religious "justifications" for slavery (citing Old Testament verses containing references to slaves, for example) were in response to the ever-growing wave (and half-century plus years worth) of Bible-based, anti-slavery notions of Equality. During the Civil War there was no national anthem, but the most popular patriotic song and closest thing there was for the North was The Battle Hymn of the Republic. The 2nd best-selling book of the 19th century (after the Bible) in the U.S. was the very religious abolitionist Harriett Beecher Stowe's anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1852. Lincoln reportedly commented that she (Stowe) was the one who "started the (Civil) war".

It's self-contradictory to cite U.S. history and link slavery to your discussion yet cite contempt for a book that was largely responsible for changing societal beliefs that brought about the end of slavery in the U.S. Referring to slavery as "vile, disgusting, and inhuman" as you have here in 2017 was already being done so in early 1800's by the Abolitionists, and they were using the Bible to fuel that fervent belief of this "sinfulness". For that element, the push for equality to buck the system for change, the call to action, and work to have it eradicated (even through violence by some) was based on Biblical tenets.

That being said, I have no opinion on LBGT-etcs, Ozzie SSM, or Qantas paint jobs. I don't even go to church, but I do know my U.S. history and the role religious movements have played. You can't separate the U.S. Civil war from the Abolitionist movement, and you can't separate the Abolitionist movement from Bible-based religion and movements and their increasing conflict with slavery in the decades leading up to the civil war.

You may have contempt for the Bible (not that I care either way) but if you're basing that contempt on it supposedly being "pro-slavery" as if it was the justification that held that institution together for as long as it did in the U.S. (ignoring it's economic basis for it's continued existence by the landed, influential few in the Democrat South) while ignoring the Bible as a main source for the changing attitudes in society that did away with slavery to the point of a Civil War based on notions of Equality that make it intolerable, then you're doing so out of convenience to serve your own purpose or a belief in modern cliche's, not from a knowledge of historical facts.

[601]

Labor has had a conscience vote on this issue since 2012 and this will continue for the life of this parliament.

By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.

The Libs and the Nats allow party members to CROSS the floor without expulsion.

[hillbillybob]

By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.

The Libs and the Nats allow party members to CROSS the floor without expulsion.

unless they are in cabinet, then the punishment is off to the back bench

[IsDon]

In an attempt to come up to speed on which barrows are currently being pushed, I thought I'd research the latest acronym currently in vogue in the coffee shops of the downtrodden.

I thought LBGT would cover it, but then Q made an appearance, but now this:

LGBTTIQQ2SA (http://en.wikimannia.org/LGBTTIQQ2SA)

Apparently though it still lacks at least 50 sexual identities.

I propose another letter to the acronym train. C-Car lover.

I love my car. Why can't I marry it?

LGBTTIQQ2SAC anybody?

[obira]

By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.


The Coalition will kick anyone off the front bench who votes for marriage equality. You demanded references (with five exclamation marks no less) and yet when provided with them still pretend it's not true.

Here is the Labor party platform on same sex marriage:
the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party. This resolution is rescinded upon the commencement of the 46th parliament.

There, just as I said, a conscience vote on this issue from 2012 until the end of this parliament.

I have no doubt you'll still pretend this isn't true either.

.

[tail wheel]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/82fQ0lbisj7rO/200.gif#3

....
....
....

................. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/Closed.gif