PDA

View Full Version : Gay colors?


Pages : [1] 2

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 07:35
Why is a aircraft being taken off line (QF) to be painted in rainbow colors with a rainbow flag for the Gay Mardi Gras? Engineers are enraged at this message they got from hirachy. Hopefully its a joke, but in these days......... its more then possible.

HeartyMeatballs
13th Feb 2017, 07:39
Why? It gives them kudos & will encourage more to fly with them than it will put them off. The QF fanboys will spin it that QF is doing it for social justice but in reality, free publicity and extra revenue. The QF media machine in action.

Fonz121
13th Feb 2017, 07:50
Before this is closed...

Do you have issues with all QF themed aircraft? Or just this one? I'd hazard a guess that it's this one in particular. Go be miserable somewhere else.

Freehills
13th Feb 2017, 07:59
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

le Pingouin
13th Feb 2017, 08:03
Qantas is a sponsor, it's a major event that attracts a lot of foreign and domestic visitors and the "pink" dollar is huge.

Rainbow Roo ? Qantas shows support for Sydney Mardi Gras | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/02/qantas-shows-support-for-sydney-mardi-gras/)

Partners ? Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (http://www.mardigras.org.au/partners/)

Keg
13th Feb 2017, 08:09
The flag is upside down. International sign of distress. Seems about right

witwiw
13th Feb 2017, 08:32
Well spotted Keg. :D:D:D

prm1
13th Feb 2017, 08:40
Why is a aircraft being taken off line (QF) to be painted in rainbow colors with a rainbow flag for the Gay Mardi Gras?

Alan Joyce open in his lifestyle and the Gay Mardi Gras, what did you think would happen

framer
13th Feb 2017, 09:53
Engineers are enraged at this message they got from hirachy
I call BS.
Most Engineers have ceased living in the 80's and are enjoying the present decade where issues like this are....... non-issues.

Keg
13th Feb 2017, 10:06
It's been a long time (more than a decade) since I've flown with anyone that has expressed homophobic opinions (in the true sense of the word). I don't know of anyone that has a problem flying with a LGBTQI colleague.

The angst that I detect is more about the overt politicisation of the workplace- particularly for those who may not support the parallel #equalityis campaign Qantas is running. Even a couple of people I've spoken to that support SSM think the use of the A330 in these colours is inappropriate politicisation- their words, not mine.

Fatguyinalittlecoat
13th Feb 2017, 10:11
So? Why do you need to get on Pprune and tell evetyone?

Exit Strategy
13th Feb 2017, 10:15
phobia
ˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
noun: phobia; plural noun: phobias
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

I don't know anybody who has a fear of them but know plenty that don't like them.

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 10:29
Before this is closed...

Do you have issues with all QF themed aircraft? Or just this one? I'd hazard a guess that it's this one in particular. Go be miserable somewhere else. Then perhaps we should have one done for Anzac Day. A day for ALL Australians.

Fonz121
13th Feb 2017, 10:35
Now you're just embarrassing yourselves.

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 10:38
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 thereProbably because they are snowed under with real jobs. And dont have time to pull a A/C off line, for a job like this.

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 10:49
Before this is closed...

Do you have issues with all QF themed aircraft? Or just this one? I'd hazard a guess that it's this one in particular. Go be miserable somewhere else.
Why should it be closed? Because its not PC? I thought we still lived in a democracy.Its not about Gays, so why not have a Aircraft painted for Anzac Day? Australia Day? Labor Day? Palm Sunday? Easter? Christmas? Oddly enough, some find it offensive for three quarter naked people, strutting their stuff in a public place. Then painting an aircraft that carries The Australian Flag, to promote it. Those people also have a right, to express their opinion.

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 10:50
So? Why do you need to get on Pprune and tell evetyone?
Did you think, nobody would notice?

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 10:52
I call BS.
Most Engineers have ceased living in the 80's and are enjoying the present decade where issues like this are....... non-issues.
Wanna bet?

Ida down
13th Feb 2017, 11:01
It's been a long time (more than a decade) since I've flown with anyone that has expressed homophobic opinions (in the true sense of the word). I don't know of anyone that has a problem flying with a LGBTQI colleague.

The angst that I detect is more about the overt politicisation of the workplace- particularly for those who may not support the parallel #equalityis campaign Qantas is running. Even a couple of people I've spoken to that support SSM think the use of the A330 in these colours is inappropriate politicisation- their words, not mine.Exactly Keg. Anzac Day for ALL Australians regardless of color or creed or sexuality, I would understand.A Mardi Gras, I find perhaps a little disconcerting. Then again I flew with pilots who would think LGBTQI were jumble words that meant something, you just had to get it.Different times.PS. I still don't know what they mean.What is a Q? Or an I?

le Pingouin
13th Feb 2017, 11:03
It will be closed because it starts attracting the likes of cattletruck being offensive and making comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with aviation.

Do Qantas sponsor any of those events for 2017? No.

Ken Borough
13th Feb 2017, 11:28
I think that it's a bridge too far. I don't give a flying fig about the Gay Mardi Gras but why has Qantas corrupted its corporate logo for a (perceived) short term commercial gain? I know of not one other instance when Qantas has used other than its standard logo. Did it paint "Qantas" on the 747 used for the Olympic team in green and gold? No. Did it do likewise on the 380 that was decorated for the Wallabies? No. Did the Qantas logo change on OJB and EBU when they were Wunala and Nalanji Dreaming? No. Has any other leading company bastardised its corporate logo by deviating from its standards?

I guess the rainbow logo is getting attention which was the intention but is it good attention?

le Pingouin
13th Feb 2017, 11:34
It was entirely removed on the Wallabies 747. Why do you think many people will give a rats?:

http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-747/vh-ojo/4631.148l.jpg

pax britanica
13th Feb 2017, 12:12
If forming opinions about Australia from certain touristy and trendy districts I am surprised the whole fleet are not painted in this livery ..................









( just kidding and certainly no harm in doing it although the roo should still be the main feature)

QFdude
13th Feb 2017, 12:12
Ken, the red colour as part of the tail logo on B738 XZJ (Mendoowoorrji Livery) is not the QF red.

le Pingouin
13th Feb 2017, 12:15
What's that Skip? Qantas is down the back in cattle class wearing yellow? And except for the Q it's in lower case?

le Pingouin
13th Feb 2017, 12:42
"Has any other leading company bastardised its corporate logo by deviating from its standards?"

Yes. British Airways.


https://aviation-spotting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IMG_9708-600x400.jpg

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/147/147918_800.jpg

flight_mode
13th Feb 2017, 14:12
Engineers are enraged I’m wondering if they are enraged because an AC was taken off the line for painting, or because they have to paint it in “gay colours”. OP seems to contend the latter. That’s a real shame.

Maybe these spanner monkeys should put down their Daily Mail, switch off their record player, trade in their ox for a car and open their eyes to 2017.

As an openly gay guy working in engineering (Switzerland) I’m really relieved to say this kind of “enragement” wouldn’t happen here. Our marketing department could mandate re-painting the fuselage in pink, cockpit (pun intended) in purple and depicting the MLG as two hairy swingers and nobody would raise and eyelid. Get over yourselves.

I won’t quote what cattletruck said in #14, but connecting gays and paedophilia together shows a startling naivety. There’s a very highly cited study by behavioural sexologists in Toronto. I won’t paste the link because it contains long, multi-syllable words but in short they put the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual offenders at 11:1…. Get back under your rock… I’m glad we are on opposite sides of the planet – the likelihood of us ever having to work together is practically zero…. Phew.

At ease
13th Feb 2017, 14:37
It is an abomination.

busdriver007
13th Feb 2017, 16:39
Let's make it the "Straight 78"! It is the majority after all!

maggot
13th Feb 2017, 18:42
It is an abomination.

Yes i know, this thread is just awful

theheadmaster
13th Feb 2017, 18:57
Oddly enough, some find it offensive for three quarter naked people, strutting their stuff in a public place.

So I guess that great Aussie tradition of going to the beach is also a bridge too far for these intolerant people stuck in the 19th century.

The irony is that there would not need to be a Mardi Gras if there was not the intolerance displayed by the OP and people like him.

Fonz121
13th Feb 2017, 19:13
Then perhaps we should have one done for Anzac Day. A day for ALL Australians.

Show me the servicemen and women who are discriminated against because of how they were born and I'll paint the plane myself.

tery84vx
13th Feb 2017, 20:32
I think it is really good, but do it to an A380 and fly it to Dubai that would be better

ruprecht
13th Feb 2017, 20:39
It's been a long time (more than a decade) since I've flown with anyone that has expressed homophobic opinions

That is probably because, as the captain, you set the tone on the flight deck.

I can assure you that there are still some around... :rolleyes:

ruprecht

parabellum
13th Feb 2017, 21:35
Considering that many passengers won't know the aircraft they are flying on or how many engines it has, far less what the paint scheme is, is there any point? The people who will see it most are airside airport workers and the odd passenger that happens to be looking out of a terminal window as it taxis past. Some will see it as just another instance of a minority issue given the 'in your face' treatment. Personally I think it is a very expensive waste of time.

L'aviateur
13th Feb 2017, 21:58
It will be noticed and will appear in many instagram, twitter and Facebook photos. Ultimately reprinting aircraft in promotional schemes will have a considered marketing benefit. The colours are also representative of the CEO and many front line employees.
It would be good to see more causes and promotional colours celebrating Australian heritage and minorities on Qantas aircraft.

Fris B. Fairing
13th Feb 2017, 22:07
What an outstanding achievement! I would not have thought it possible to make the new livery look worse but clearly I underestimate the ability of the marketing department. I donít have a problem with Qantas supporting (a cynic might say patronising) the LGBTI community but you donít mess with your brand to do so.

Eaglet
13th Feb 2017, 22:19
Boeing folk already know Airbuses are gay, no need for a paint scheme to prove it!

RoyHudd
13th Feb 2017, 22:26
Homophobic means being fearful of gays. I am not that, but I do not enjoy flying alongside gay men. What, pray, is wrong with that? We are very different types of people after all, and have different ways. I am not saying that there is a right and a wrong, but there sure is a difference. The gay guys acknowledge this too. And they freely admit that they too prefer flying alongside their own kind. Safety is not an issue, thanks to SOP's and corporate culture. We are tolerant, which does not equate to enjoyment, nor to phobia of people of other sexual inclinations.

SLFAussie
13th Feb 2017, 23:00
What does the acronym LGBTIQ mean?

Lesbian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian)
Gay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay)
Bisexual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality)
Trans* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender)
Intersex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)
Queer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer)

What does it mean for me? I'm a 'G'. I take it personally. But if you were sitting next to me on an A330, you'd probably need to be told that I'm a 'G' to know.

When a company indulges in a bit of pink marketing I pay attention, because it tells me that the company knows about LGBTIQ presence, what issues LGBTIQ people might have to deal with and that that the company provides a safe space where we don't have to deal with the hostility that some give off.

I choose to avoid some airlines because of the laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates)in the countries that they are based in or fly through. I now think twice before booking on QF9 or QF10 now that it flies via Dubai. Dubai is not a place I want to be stuck in if an aircraft has a tech fault, which was never a consideration in Hong Kong or Singapore.

anson harris
13th Feb 2017, 23:25
I am not that, but I do not enjoy flying alongside gay men
What do you think is going to happen?
How do you feel about flying with blacks? Women? The intelligent and thoughtful?
I think if you were to actually ask most gay people who they prefer flying with, I'm pretty sure you won't find them basing their answer on sexuality or any other factor over which people have no control. What they will often say is that they would like to fly with professional people who are good at what they do. What a pity you can't say the same.

das Uber Soldat
14th Feb 2017, 00:44
tolerance
ˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.

RoyHudd is showing it. Anson is not.

Btw this thread is beyond absurd.

The Green Goblin
14th Feb 2017, 01:27
Who cares in all honesty.

The more gay pilots the better. I'm sure there are now a lot of gay muslim black pilots applying. Despite the fact they're whiter than me. (I love political correctness).

Someone's sexual preference is their own business. Just because they're gay, doesn't mean they want to ravish you in the flight deck. Just means they're probably a better pilot and human being than you are :)

CaptCloudbuster
14th Feb 2017, 01:56
Show me the servicemen and women who are discriminated against because of how they were born and I'll paint the plane myself.

Indigenous Diggers (https://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/indigenous/) spring to mind.

le Pingouin
14th Feb 2017, 02:38
Cloudbuster, it's who are discriminated against not were 70 years ago.

ExtraShot
14th Feb 2017, 03:46
Just because they're gay, doesn't mean they want to ravish you in the flight deck.

Aww C'mon! My Mum tells me all the time that I'm the most Handsome guy in the world. How could they not want me!?

wondrousbitofrough
14th Feb 2017, 03:48
I was always told that, as an airline employee, if you don't like people who 'enjoy the company' of the same sex, you'd be in the wrong job...

Capn Rex Havoc
14th Feb 2017, 04:47
It is only to match the pilots' white hats and uniform.

;)

Lookleft
14th Feb 2017, 04:52
So whats the difference between being gay and being queer? I think its all about chasing the so called "pink dollar" rather than any grand statement on diversity.

Just means they're probably a better pilot and human being than you are

Thats a very big generalization there GG! I can think of one individual at a certain brightly coloured LCC who was most certainly not a better pilot because of his sexuality.

CaptCloudbuster
14th Feb 2017, 05:42
Silly me, glad to hear discrimination against our Indigenous (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/aborigines-face-systemic-racial-discrimination-report-20151104-gkqlii.html) is a thing of the past:rolleyes:

maggot
14th Feb 2017, 05:48
Silly me, glad to hear discrimination against our Indigenous (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/aborigines-face-systemic-racial-discrimination-report-20151104-gkqlii.html) is a thing of the past:rolleyes:

Yes and qf has had multiple liveries over the years honouring the first aussies... which is what you're trying to point out, right?

Lookleft
14th Feb 2017, 08:21
I think the colour schemes were all about the publicity rather than honouring the first aussies If QF want to honour indigenous culture then paint the indigenous flag with the Roo like they have done with the rainbow flag.

it's who are discriminated against not were 70 years ago.

I think that has to qualify for the most ridiculous statement so far. If there is a hierarchy of discrimination then LGBTIQ is a long way behind Indigenous discrimination.

maggot
14th Feb 2017, 08:35
I think the colour schemes were all about the publicity rather than....

In as much as the rainbow roo is...
My comment was in context of a lack of similar from qf.

Skipness One Echo
14th Feb 2017, 09:18
Homophobic means being fearful of gays. I am not that, but I do not enjoy flying alongside gay men. What, pray, is wrong with that? We are very different types of people after all, and have different ways.
It's the blatant ignorance.
Gay men, of which I am openly one, (came out at 24), are for the most part people with a different sexual preference. What you just said there is this.
1) You can be friends with a colleague, talk about sports and other everyday matters
2) Discover later he's gay, decide you no longer enjoy flying with them.

That's pretty low actually, to know that colleagues no longer working with you based on something that's exactly none of your business. Unless you mean openly gay, which if you think about it for a moment, doesn't make it in any way better. You are not "very different types of people" simply because one guy likes men and the other women. That's the fundamental truth so many open minded people have been discovering in recent years. Some guys I had down as likely hostile and bigoted have shrugged and gone, "live and let live", bought their round and gone home confident in the knowledge I am not gonna turn them gay.

I am betting a % of your friends are gay and wouldn't tell you because they like you and don't want to loser a mate, but they know that part of you is intolerant. People lie to you because they like you, I used to do it every day. I can't believe this is even up for debate in 2017.

Gargleblaster
14th Feb 2017, 09:33
Just as a curiosity, WOW Air has an A330 registerred as TF-GAY...

olster
14th Feb 2017, 11:04
Thankfully we live ( in the 'West') in a tolerant world and the sexuality of a colleague is of no importance same as the colour, religion, sex etc is equally not relevant. What is important is the professionalism and competence of said colleague and how we are judged in that role. However... I do have concerns regarding celebrating any type of sexuality in the form of an airline paint scheme. It is inappropriate regardless of sexuality 'type'. Just my opinion.

601
15th Feb 2017, 00:22
Seeing that this is increasing in length, I thought that I would add my orientation
LGBTQIH

das Uber Soldat
15th Feb 2017, 00:24
I love the hypocrisy of demanding tolerance, yet being completely intolerant of someone who simply doesn't like flying with gay people.

Or is tolerance only for those who don't share your preferences?

CaptCloudbuster
15th Feb 2017, 00:40
Must admit this article gave me a wry smile in light of Fonzies / Penguins recent assertion.... Who would have thought an RSL would still be disrespectful to our indigenous in 2017.

Racist stereotypical caricatures in the mens urinal (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/rsl-club-criticised-over-aboriginal-men-toilet-wall-tiles/8270296) no less:cool:

anson harris
15th Feb 2017, 01:01
I love the hypocrisy of demanding tolerance, yet being completely intolerant of someone who simply doesn't like flying with gay people.

Change the words around to "someone who simply doesn't like flying with blacks". You won't argue that point because there is no come back.

psycho joe
15th Feb 2017, 01:05
I wonít quote what cattletruck said in #14, but connecting gays and paedophilia together shows a startling naivety.

Perhaps, but here in Australia there is a Victorian university academic who wants to ad IS (inter-generational sex) to LGBTQI brand. IS is usually known by its colloquial term paedophilia. He's a strong advocate who's published works are mostly unrepeatable here or elsewhere. Amongst other things he argued in a published journal that paedophilia should be part of the gay movement, it must be legally recognised and depicts it as a wider sexual liberation.

We live in a time when virtually any sexual desire, including disorders are being legitimised as normal, hence its only a matter of time before you see a company like QANTAS hoisting some colours to recognise the "inter-generational sex" community.

Personally, I want to live long enough to see QANTAS flying colours for those who really love goats. Que people on forums coming out as proud GF's who denounce the 99% of statistically normal people who aren't GF's, as being Goat F$&ker phobic. Then there will be parades and posters and advertising telling us how we must view the wonderful GF community. The media will surely get on board and companies will force employees into diversity training until they become fellow champions of the GF cause who wish to challenge and change any institution that isn't Goat inclusive- after all it's their right.

ruprecht
15th Feb 2017, 01:08
I love the hypocrisy of demanding tolerance, yet being completely intolerant of someone who simply doesn't like flying with gay people.

Or is tolerance only for those who don't share your preferences?

This raises the question: "How do you know they are gay?"

Do you assume everyone is gay and dislike them until you deem them not?

Do you assume that everyone is heterosexual and like them until you judge them to be gay?

As part of your instrument scan, do you also scan their conversations for home decor tips or obscure Judy Garland references?

"Oh yeah, I was just kicking the footy with the kids while listening to Bette Midler on the iPod... oops.. I mean... uh, Cold Chisel and Nickelback..!* Dammit, sprung again."

This just sounds exhausting... :hmm:

ruprecht

* That'd be a dead giveaway, no-one in their right mind would admit listening to Nickelback.

das Uber Soldat
15th Feb 2017, 01:34
I will argue that point, because its exactly the same.

Whats clear is that people are marching around demanding others be tolerant of X,Y and Z, yet at the same time showing nothing but intolerance of others whos views they don't agree with. That's not how it works son, tolerance isn't a 1 way street.

OP didn't say he treated gays any differently to another person, only that he didn't enjoy flying with them. Thats no crime and who are you to stipulate what another person does or doesn't like?

In my experience the least tolerant people are often the ones most loudly demanding tolerance from others.

Looking at it a different way, OP has stated his belief. He hasn't attacked anyone, shown evidence that he treats those he doesn't like poorly or discriminated in any way. He shows tolerance and goes about his business one assumes in a professional manner.

On the other hand, those of you here demanding 'tolerance' have personally attacked him and insulted his intellect and person. Its blazing hypocrisy and the excuse of some 'moral high ground' exemption to your behaviour doesn't hold water with me.

If you want to preach tolerance, start practicing it.

das Uber Soldat
15th Feb 2017, 01:40
This raises the question: "How do you know they are gay?"No idea. Some people make it clear, others do not.

Do you assume everyone is gay and dislike them until you deem them not?No idea, ask the OP. Why are you asking me? I have no issue flying with anyone (except the French of course)

Do you assume that everyone is heterosexual and like them until you judge them to be gay?I'm starting to think you've quoted the wrong person. Did you assume that I dislike homosexuals? Does that count as ironic given your question?

As part of your instrument scan, do you also scan their conversations for home decor tips or obscure Judy Garland references?Don't the gays all wear glitter?! Are you saying they dont!?

"Oh yeah, I was just kicking the footy with the kids while listening to Bette Midler on the iPod... oops.. I mean... uh, Cold Chisel and Nickelback..!* Dammit, sprung again."

This just sounds exhausting...
Jokes aside, my point here at its core has nothing to do with homosexuals. I dislike this PC push for tolerance that often comes from some of the least tolerant people on earth.

josephfeatherweight
15th Feb 2017, 01:41
Personally, I want to live long enough to see QANTAS flying colours for those who really love goats.

There are some good lookin' goats out there...

ruprecht
15th Feb 2017, 01:49
You are right Das Uber Soldat, I appear to have misquoted you for the OP and for that I apologise.

ruprecht

topdrop
15th Feb 2017, 01:50
Plenty of goats on this forum - no idea how good they look though.

IsDon
15th Feb 2017, 04:08
Change the words around to "someone who simply doesn't like flying with blacks". You won't argue that point because there is no come back.

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.

dr dre
15th Feb 2017, 04:47
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.


May be, but if those opinions are expressed in a certain way in a recruitment process, or in the workplace, such people may find that it isn't their guaranteed right to get or keep their job.

Derfred
15th Feb 2017, 05:51
This is hilarious! The tolerant need to become tolerant of the intolerant?

There are no thought police. You can think whatever you like, but when you start making intolerant remarks, behaviours or public internet posts you need to and will be pulled up.

Paedophiles may have been born that way, and they can go their whole lives having dreams of kiddy fiddling, but if they ever engage in the practice, or promote their desires publicly, they can expect to be dealt with. The difference is that the kiddies can't, or don't know to, defend themselves (hence the legal definition of "statutory rape" and the prohibition of child porn). The suggestion that this will change in the future is ludicrous.

Interestingly, however, the intolerant have not been born that way. They have generally learned to be that way by either their upbringing, their peers, or their society. The LGBTIQ movement seeks a long term change to that, in the same way as others seek change to racial, gender and religious intolerance. Publicity is part of that gradual effort. Qantas seeks to be part of that, and as a pilot employee I'm personally proud to see them do so.

IsDon
15th Feb 2017, 06:15
This is hilarious! The tolerant need to become tolerant of the intolerant?

There are no thought police. You can think whatever you like, but when you start making intolerant remarks, behaviours or public internet posts you need to and will be pulled up.

Paedophiles may have been born that way, and they can go their whole lives having dreams of kiddy fiddling, but if they ever engage in the practice, or promote their desires publicly, they can expect to be dealt with. The difference is that the kiddies can't, or don't know to, defend themselves (hence the legal definition of "statutory rape" and the prohibition of child porn). The suggestion that this will change in the future is ludicrous.

Interestingly, however, the intolerant have not been born that way. They have generally learned to be that way by either their upbringing, their peers, or their society. The LGBTIQ movement seeks a long term change to that, in the same way as others seek change to racial, gender and religious intolerance. Publicity is part of that gradual effort. Qantas seeks to be part of that, and as a pilot employee I'm personally proud to see them do so.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to disagree with you.

I prefer not to fly around in a Mardi Gras float, and I'm disappointed in my company that they are forcing me to do so. If you want to go join the parade, go for it. Just don't force me to be a part of what I find to be disgusting.

Jc31
15th Feb 2017, 06:49
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to disagree with you.

I prefer not to fly around in a Mardi Gras float, and I'm disappointed in my company that they are forcing me to do so. If you want to go join the parade, go for it. Just don't force me to be a part of what I find to be disgusting.

Maybe you should let your manager know how you feel?

IsDon
15th Feb 2017, 07:28
Maybe you should let your manager know how you feel?

I have. He understands my position.

strim
15th Feb 2017, 08:06
A couple of Bernardi worshippers lurkin....


Must be unsettling to live in such fear...

Beer Baron
15th Feb 2017, 08:14
phobia
ˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
noun: phobia; plural noun: phobias
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

I don't know anybody who has a fear of them but know plenty that don't like them.
While you were on Dictionary.com did you happen to read the definition of aversion? I'll help you out...
Aversion: noun
1. a strong feeling of dislike, opposition, repugnance, or antipathy (usually followed by to):
2. a cause or object of dislike; person or thing that causes antipathy:

So all those people you know who "don't like" gay people, well they are homophobic.

PDR1
15th Feb 2017, 08:43
I have. He understands my position.
Well in the UK such a position would be illegal in an employment context, and would force your employer to bring a disciplinary action which (if the position didn't change) would lead to dismissal. Any supervisor/manager who was aware of that position in one of his/her subordinates (or indeed in any employee) and failed to address it would also face disciplinary action (and probable dismissal), as well as layingthe company open to some quite large fines and compensation.

Legally and socially homophobia is SO last-century, you know.

PDR

p.j.m
15th Feb 2017, 09:09
I call BS.
Most Engineers have ceased living in the 80's and are enjoying the present decade where issues like this are....... non-issues.
Call what you like, it doesn't change the fact that pollies and gays don't want to hold a plebiscite on gay marriage because they know the people won't pass it.

Times are changing, the pendlum is "swinging" back. Just look at brexit, Germany, France, the USA, One Nation.

V-Jet
15th Feb 2017, 09:10
Well in the UK such a position would be illegal in an employment context, and would force your employer to bring a disciplinary action which (if the position didn't change) would lead to dismissal. Any supervisor/manager who was aware of that position in one of his/her subordinates (or indeed in any employee) and failed to address it would also face disciplinary action (and probable dismissal), as well as layingthe company open to some quite large fines and compensation.

Legally and socially homophobia is SO last-century, you know.

PDR

Lucky an openly gay CEO also using his company bank balance to internationally promote gay issues has never been to Dubai and wouldn't have ever considered forcing any of his like minded customers into such a jurisdiction....

Fonz121
15th Feb 2017, 09:11
IsDon, you could do as another pilot did recently and quit over it. I'm sure the Qantas group won't miss him or anyone else with similar views.

I've heard Emirates are hiring. Might be more in line with your views.

maggot
15th Feb 2017, 09:28
IsDon, you could do as another pilot did recently and quit over it. I'm sure the Qantas group won't miss him or anyone else with similar views.



Wwhhhhaaaaaa

For reals? Damn I'm out of the loop

ChickenHouse
15th Feb 2017, 09:32
Can somebody explain to me where this rainbow = gay comes from? Seriously, I don't understand that, because I only know rainbow colors as flag for diversity and "gay" just being one of the more challenging things in certain parts of the world.

Fonz121
15th Feb 2017, 09:34
Qantas group pilot I should say. But yeah, that happened. I admire their dedication to their principles. But that's about it.

donpizmeov
15th Feb 2017, 10:52
Fonz121 there are many gay crew at EK. Perhaps you are showing some other type of intolerance. But I guess that's ok.

das Uber Soldat
15th Feb 2017, 10:54
So all those people you know who "don't like" gay people, well they are homophobic.
Please explain to me how 'I don't like flying with gay people' fits with the definition of an 'extreme aversion'? Or is your contention that now phobia and aversion are interchangeable synonyms?

I don't like kebabs, am I now a kebabaphobic?!

:ugh:

Derfred
15th Feb 2017, 10:55
I prefer not to fly around in a Mardi Gras float, and I'm disappointed in my company that they are forcing me to do so. If you want to go join the parade, go for it. Just don't force me to be a part of what I find to be disgusting.

Fine, refuse the duty. Call the Murdoch press beforehand; it would be a shame to go without a bang. But get your logbook in order, Emirates might need to see it. Have fun. The 99% of us who don't share your abhorence won't miss you.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
15th Feb 2017, 11:08
I don't share his abhorrence either, FWIW. Just curious though: There are plenty of people (including some in QF) who have sincere and deeply-held religious beliefs that are incompatible with this sort of promotion. Where do they stand with all this, I wonder? Some of those religious beliefs are part of the rich diversity which everyone must now celebrate, just as the whole LGBTQI thing is. It gets a bit awkward when aspects of our wonderful diversity turn out to be incompatible, don't you think?

Derfred
15th Feb 2017, 11:28
No, I don't think it is at all. I'm sure Keg has an opinion on this (if that's what you're referring to), and he stated his opinion on page 1 of this thread (something like unwarranted political expression or something). Apart from that he has stayed away from the thread. Probably due to, how do I spell it again? "Tolerance"?

itsnotthatbloodyhard
15th Feb 2017, 11:47
I'm sure Keg has an opinion on this (if that's what you're referring to)

No, I wasn't.

Turnleft080
15th Feb 2017, 13:06
That's not a flying colour Equatoriana is a flying colour.

Asteroid 2578
15th Feb 2017, 14:43
I have read that the Sydney Mardi Gras is New South Wales’ second largest annual event generating revenue for the State of $30 million and drawings many thousands of visitors both international and interstate, with the vast majority of these visitors arriving by plane.

Is it any wonder that the biggest airline in Australia which happens to be based in Sydney is a major sponsor of the event? VH-QPJ (the ‘Rainbow Roo’) is an obvious tie-in with ‘Official airline partner of Sydney Mardi Gras’ written along each side of the fuselage.

I remember seeing VH-OJC (‘City of Melbourne’) from 1997 to 2001 and later VH-OEB (‘Phillip Island’) from 2010 to 2012 each wearing an Australian Grand Prix Formula 1 livery when Qantas was the major sponsor for that event. This was similarly a commercial tie-in which went hand in hand with sponsorship of the event.

As regards the other discussion on this thread, I read as a youngster Clive James’ second memoir ‘Falling Towards England’. The four pages he writes about sharing digs in London with his old acquaintance from Sydney University taught me more about tolerance than anything I had read up to that time or since for that matter.

Clive James closes the chapter with a sentence I have found to be truer and truer the older I get.

“Some people are different from the rest of us, and so are the rest of us.”

Derfred
15th Feb 2017, 15:43
No, I wasn't.

No worries, the rest of my post stands.

But you have implied something with your post, what are you saying?

Certain religious beliefs deny the tolerance of such a livery? Please progress your argument.

Cheers, my friend.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
15th Feb 2017, 19:06
Yes, certain religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is deeply wrong, and holders of those beliefs may well have a problem if they feel that they're being used to promote a homosexual agenda. I'm just wondering if we're about to see a bit of a collision between religious freedom and the sort of tolerance that society is otherwise embracing. We have a few fairly fundamentalist pilots out there, after all.

Personally I'm not bothered.

IsDon
15th Feb 2017, 19:25
Well in the UK such a position would be illegal in an employment context, and would force your employer to bring a disciplinary action which (if the position didn't change) would lead to dismissal. Any supervisor/manager who was aware of that position in one of his/her subordinates (or indeed in any employee) and failed to address it would also face disciplinary action (and probable dismissal), as well as layingthe company open to some quite large fines and compensation.

Legally and socially homophobia is SO last-century, you know.

PDR

I find that very difficult to believe.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is illegal to have an opinion that is not PC.

What Orwellian nonsense.

PDR1
15th Feb 2017, 20:41
Yes, certain religious beliefs hold that homosexuality is deeply wrong, and holders of those beliefs may well have a problem if they feel that they're being used to promote a homosexual agenda. I'm just wondering if we're about to see a bit of a collision between religious freedom and the sort of tolerance that society is otherwise embracing. We have a few fairly fundamentalist pilots out there, after all.

Personally I'm not bothered.

There are many such conflicts. Two I can think of in the UK are the B&B owners who refused to allow a gay couple to have a room with a single bed and the bakery which refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, both on religious grounds. IIRC in both cases the courts ruled that illegal discrimination had occurred.

PDR

Freewheel
15th Feb 2017, 20:44
I think the flag makes the tail look a bit too "busy" and the colours make the titling look a little indistinct.

Not an outstanding effort, but it's hardly the worst special livery applied to an airliner.

I'd rather the rat got it's forelegs back.

PDR1
15th Feb 2017, 20:49
I find that very difficult to believe.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is illegal to have an opinion that is not PC.

What Orwellian nonsense.

Calling it "PC" is just lazy thinking.

In the UK holding such views isn't illegal. But expressing such views in the workplace is either harassment or bullying because it will make gay people feel uncomfortable, and that is illegal. There is plenty of case law on this.

Allowing such views to materially affect the workplace (eg work assignments, teamings etc) is illegal discrimination. So is someone says "I won't share a cockpit with a gay man" and the company obliges by adjusting rosters to ensure he doesn't then the law would have been broken and both he and the employer would face charges.

PDR

Keg
15th Feb 2017, 22:07
.....expressing such views in the workplace is either harassment or bullying because it will make gay people feel uncomfortable, and that is illegal.

I'm just going to leave this here. It sums it up nicely. It's not OK to make gay people feel uncomfortable. That is UK case law. Apparently there is no law against religious people and non religious people alike feel uncomfortable.

I have some further thoughts on the issue but lack time to respond at the moment. Perhaps later today.

maggot
15th Feb 2017, 22:09
One is a choice and the other is not?

Lookleft
15th Feb 2017, 22:26
Here is an example of your Orwellian nonsense IsDon:

British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21025332)

Jeps
15th Feb 2017, 22:36
Or we could just be civil to one another because we are adults and its the 21st century.

Willie Nelson
15th Feb 2017, 22:36
I do look forward to the day when there is no enormous PR campaigns by companies like QF in support of gay rights or any other form of civil rights because they are long established and accepted but as this thread clearly demonstrates that day is some time off.

In the mean time the only right we can celebrate with certainty is the right to be a bigot. Yay!

On a side note, even people like IsDon must acknowledge that this is an effective way to raise QF profile.

PDR1
15th Feb 2017, 22:40
Or we could just be civil to one another because we are adults and its the 21st century.

Oh absolutely. That's always the preferred option.

I'm even civil to those of my fellow engineers who are openly female*!

:E

PDR

* Currently about 50/50 male/female in the engineering function in our business unit

griffin one
16th Feb 2017, 01:13
Oh absolutely. That's always the preferred option.

I'm even civil to those of my fellow engineers who are openly female*!

:E

PDR

* Currently about 50/50 male/female in the engineering function in our business unit
Coming from the unwashed engineering fraternity who daily has to put up with glares of intolerance from higher then though crew this topic is absurd.
Engineering doesn't care what colour your flying piece of tin is painted, We only care about doing our best so everyone is as safe as possible.
But lets be tolerant to all. Invite Muslims to paint a plane for EAD.
Paint an Australian flag for Australia Day,Aboriginal flag for reconciliation,the list would never end.
Let's all be happy(gay) to live in a free democratic society and get over first world problems
Cheers

Jetstarpilot
16th Feb 2017, 04:07
It "higher than thow":rolleyes:

No wunder....

chuboy
16th Feb 2017, 08:37
How embarrassing for Qantas to have this thread on the internet for everyone to see

PDR1
16th Feb 2017, 09:38
It "higher than thow":rolleyes:

No wunder....
I assumed it was intended to be "Holier than thou" [Isaiah 65:5]. I was amused to discover that "holier than Thou" is also the trade name of an ear [etc] piercing clinic in Manchester!

PDR

maggot
16th Feb 2017, 10:29
I assumed it was intended to be "Holier than thou" [Isaiah 65:5]. I was amused to discover that "holier than Thou" is also the trade name of an ear [etc] piercing clinic in Manchester!

PDR

Also a metallica song ^m^

Some other words they sing - judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thooouuuuu you are

Lookleft
16th Feb 2017, 10:34
On a side note, even people like IsDon must acknowledge that this is an effective way to raise QF profile.

Yeah because sponsoring the Wallabies, the Socceroos, The Australian Cricket team, the Olympic team and probably I few I've missed has left Qantas marketing despairing at the lack of brand recognition with the Australian public.

dr dre
16th Feb 2017, 11:12
Yeah because sponsoring the Wallabies, the Socceroos, The Australian Cricket team, the Olympic team and probably I few I've missed has left Qantas marketing despairing at the lack of brand recognition with the Australian public.


A large enough proportion of the Australian public isn't interested in sport, they find cultural events such as this more important, and a company in the travel industry would be wise to promote themselves within the LGBT community, which generally has a large amount of disposable income. Very smart move I believe.

neville_nobody
17th Feb 2017, 02:15
company in the travel industry would be wise to promote themselves within the LGBT community, which generally has a large amount of disposable income. Very smart move I believe.

I would suggest that the economics of the Mardi Gras and the pink dollar are somewhat exaggerated.

The whole event was bankrupt in mid 2000's and was tapping the government for more public funding due to revenue shortfall as recently as 2014.

I would suggest that the so-called 'pink dollar' may not be as valuable as the gay lobby would want you to believe. A simple explanation is that while gay couples may have a higher disposable income and do spend more there just isn't the volume to have a real effect.

Not to mention the whole political aspect of so-called economic modelling. Essentially you can economically model any outcome you like. Most Olympics, APEC etc are projected as being big economic stimulus only for them to turn out as economic dead weights with the local government picking up the tab.

Metro man
17th Feb 2017, 04:14
Will the cabin crew be dressed acccordingly ?

ie white suits or leather trousers and handle bar moustaches for the boys
a nice butch crew cut, motorcycle jacket, mans jeans and Doc Martin boots for the girls.:E

bolthead
17th Feb 2017, 06:24
Hey Metro Man, leather is expensive. Those trousers would need to be very 'cheeky'.

ramble on
17th Feb 2017, 06:34
If Qantas truly wanted to do some brand marketing they could better spend the money on improving their long haul product. That is said from a subjective personal perspective as a regular traveller.

Right now the Qantas long haul economy class product has a real 'low cost low quality' feel about it and doesnt compare well to the regional competitors.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
17th Feb 2017, 06:45
cultural events

*LOL*...................

maggot
17th Feb 2017, 09:51
I would suggest that the economics of the Mardi Gras and the pink dollar are somewhat exaggerated.

The whole event was bankrupt in mid 2000's and was tapping the government for more public funding due to revenue shortfall as recently as 2014.

I would suggest that the so-called 'pink dollar' may not be as valuable as the gay lobby would want you to believe. A simple explanation is that while gay couples may have a higher disposable income and do spend more there just isn't the volume to have a real effect.

Not to mention the whole political aspect of so-called economic modelling. Essentially you can economically model any outcome you like. Most Olympics, APEC etc are projected as being big economic stimulus only for them to turn out as economic dead weights with the local government picking up the tab.

The budget management of the event is but a side show to the dollar effect.

How big? Nfi, just like you

Derfred
17th Feb 2017, 13:14
I would suggest that the economics of the Mardi Gras and the pink dollar are somewhat exaggerated.

I don't really think the economics of the Mardi Gras is that relevant but the pink dollar most certainly is.

Visit a Gay locality and check out the restaurants, clubs and real estate prices and I think you will be surprised. I know of one that I certainly couldn't afford to live in. These people also travel a lot more than I do.

But that's not really the point, is it?

No-one bats an eyelid when airlines sponsor and promote sporting events or sports teams. Makes good marketing sense, yes?

As soon as they sponsor or promote something we are bigoted against, we all start searching for reasons why they shouldn't!

For goodness sake, it's a rainbow coloured logo. It's hardly a half naked raging queen painted spawling along the fuselage....

parabellum
17th Feb 2017, 22:49
As soon as they sponsor or promote something we are bigoted against,

Don't think bigoted is the right word there. It is a very controversial minority issue being given the 'in your face' treatment and some of us, possibly many of us, simply don't want it, that is not bigoted, it is perfectly ordinary, straight forward disapproval or dislike, which is nowhere near as strong as 'bigoted'.

dr dre
18th Feb 2017, 00:41
No-one bats an eyelid when airlines sponsor and promote sporting events or sports teams. Makes good marketing sense, yes?

As soon as they sponsor or promote something we are bigoted against, we all start searching for reasons why they shouldn't!


I personally think cricket is the most boring, uninteresting "sport" to ever have been conceived. I would rather watch paint dry. Did I have a massive whinge when planes get painted with schemes advertising the national cricket team, or over cricket "stars" appearing in the safety video? No, because I'm not marketing management, and I understand they have their reasons for promoting themselves to the many people who follow cricket.

There have been other times promotions have been done for topics that I've personally disagreed with, I never felt the need to even open my mouth over it or run to PPrune to vent my anger. You may personally dislike or just have no interest in Mardi Gras, that's fine, but there are many who do and it makes sense to market to those who do.

QuarterInchSocket
18th Feb 2017, 01:21
engineer checking in.

Happy to have the colours and for QF to be perceived as progressive; though it destroys me to think that the current boss might've influenced the decision to have it there. I also thought the pun as being fun, funny and clever.

I would like to see a Movember 330 painted too. It's a cause many get behind and value as much as progressing the legal and moral standing of the LGBIT community.

To all other departments- don't worry, not all engineers are stuck in the dark ages. Cheers!

ampclamp
18th Feb 2017, 01:30
1/4 inch. Not a 330, but it has been done

http://www.aviationwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20131031_VH-VZO_Boeing_737-838_Movember_Qantas.jpg

QuarterInchSocket
18th Feb 2017, 02:23
Thanks, but prefer it on the 330 to have the international reach.

If it's good enough to pedal the LGBIT agenda on an international fleet type (fine by me), then it's good enough to put Movember on one too to get the same exposure on a universally shared and equally important issue.

chuboy
18th Feb 2017, 02:45
So forward your suggestion to the boffins in marketing then!

QuarterInchSocket
18th Feb 2017, 03:32
No, I think they do a good job all on their own and certainly don't need suggestions.

Freehills
18th Feb 2017, 04:55
Actually Keg, if you think you were being bullied in the workplace for your religious views you would also have a case. It is the bullying/ harassment that is illegal, not the issue that people are harassing you about

almostthere!
18th Feb 2017, 06:38
Why didnt they put it on an 380 flying through Dubai enroute to London ?

Freehills
18th Feb 2017, 08:32
Because they are not idiots?

hoss
18th Feb 2017, 10:28
Look, I hate to say it but some of you guys are starting to sound anal.

😉

p.j.m
18th Feb 2017, 21:43
If it's good enough to pedal the LGBIT agenda on an international fleet type (fine by me), then it's good enough to put Movember on one too to get the same exposure on a universally shared and equally important issue.
Joyce should paint his own private car in the colours of his sexual persuasion, rather than try to push a political agenda on a public airline.

Qantas has no business pushing this agenda, and getting many of its (ex) customers off-side in the process.

le Pingouin
19th Feb 2017, 04:01
What political agenda? The Mardi Gras is a huge social event and attracts a lot of people - last year over 300,000 watched the parade:

Mardi Gras 2016: Glitter explosion in Sydney's Oxford Street as thousands attend parade - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-05/mardi-gras-2016-celebrations/7223788)

It's clearly a big deal tourism-wise:

"In 2015, more than 23,000 interstate and international visitors travelled to Sydney for the annual Mardi Gras Parade and to take part in some of the festival's series of events"

Unforgettable Experiences Mardi Gras l Qantas (http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/nsw-mardigras-experiences/gb/en)

Lookleft
19th Feb 2017, 05:08
If it was just about the numbers; Floriade in Canberra attracted 481,514 visitors in 2014. I don't see Qantas painting flowers on the side of its aircraft. If you don't think that it also has a political component to it then you must also think Question Time is really an attempt to advance the country and not the showboating that it actually is.

le Pingouin
19th Feb 2017, 05:24
Qantas sponsors Mardi Gras, they don't sponsor Floriade. Why would they advertise something they don't sponsor?

knobbycobby
19th Feb 2017, 06:02
Who really cares? Can you change it?
Pilots amaze me that they spend so much energy on the things they can't control or are not significant.
On the other hand they fail to understand their own Industrial Agreements or sustaining terms and conditions of their profession.
It's sad that we are seeing more concern about this issue than protecting hard fought conditions that protect health/wealth wellbeing and time with friends and family.

Chris2303
19th Feb 2017, 07:00
Some people need to research the "circle of influence"

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
19th Feb 2017, 09:10
Chris - see post #127

QuarterInchSocket
19th Feb 2017, 10:30
Joyce should paint his own private car in the colours of his sexual persuasion, rather than try to push a political agenda on a public airline.

Qantas has no business pushing this agenda, and getting many of its (ex) customers off-side in the process.
I don't like that Joyce may have been the instigator of this colour scheme any more than you, but I must disagree with the remainder of your post.

Setting aside the commercial impact. I can't think of a more contemporary Australian company than q in the present day that can help such a tiny portion of Aussie society be happy.

As for the circle of influence - being mentally idle on topical issues may work for the rest of the world for those who choose to follow such dumb and tactless philosophies of that sort. But, it is my experience that Australian's are very mentally active, very educated, and aren't afraid to engage and tackle issues of the day, no matter how influential their thought's are. I think this a distinguishing and elevating feature of an Aussie.

V-Jet
19th Feb 2017, 11:03
He's clutching at straws and big noting himself. He started by wasting billions, now he's worked out he only has millions/hundreds of thousands to spend, and he's STILL spending it on fripperies. And that term wasn't meant to be funny. Ask the well dressed lady who paid full whack business and shat herself at TOD into Dallas while waiting for a toilet after the 'new config' numbers were reduced how she might feel about Mardi Gras paint. Except she would be far too embarrassed to even say. Also the logo change. And the $15m on technical attendant uniforms....

ONE GREEN AND HOPING
19th Feb 2017, 12:31
....Just stumbled on this thread when accidentally actioning 'Today's Posts'.

Skimmed page 1 only, and noted the acronym LGBTQI. I looked up LGBT a long time ago, but this would seem to imply a further new age edition to the group. The 'Q' word that springs to mind is, I thought, symptomatic of an illegal phobia, thus 'QI' is a puzzle. If it stands for Qualified Instructor, does this cover all modules?

Dunda
19th Feb 2017, 21:22
So the boss if forcing his employees to fly the rainbow flag at work. What's next, compulsory Mardi Gras marching attendance?

chuboy
19th Feb 2017, 23:10
Yes, then after that it's off to a correction facility where electric shocks will be used to condition your brains not to feel sexual attraction towards members of the opposite sex.

AerialPerspective
20th Feb 2017, 00:39
Before this is closed...

Do you have issues with all QF themed aircraft? Or just this one? I'd hazard a guess that it's this one in particular. Go be miserable somewhere else.
Hear Hear!!! Some people will whinge about anything... it's a good marketing move and it's a decent social justice move as well, supporting people in the community and it sends a good message. It's a decal for goodness sake... if it gets to the 100th anniversary and the company does nothing to mark the occasion on its aircraft, we'll have the same bunch of whingers complaining that the company did nothing for the historic anniversary. It wouldn't matter what it was, someone will use it to mock.

AerialPerspective
20th Feb 2017, 00:43
Why is a aircraft being taken off line (QF) to be painted in rainbow colors with a rainbow flag for the Gay Mardi Gras? Engineers are enraged at this message they got from hirachy. Hopefully its a joke, but in these days......... its more then possible.
By the way "hierarchy" is the word you're looking for I believe.

Hoofharted
20th Feb 2017, 02:06
About being constantly offended;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

AerialPerspective
20th Feb 2017, 02:11
About being constantly offended;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
Haha, yes, that's a classic, seen it a few times. Never gets old.

Keg
20th Feb 2017, 04:53
Qantas as a public company can do virtually what it likes when it comes to advertising this sort of stuff. Like others have posted, as mere line pilots and engineers there's bugger all influence we have on this issue.

Some others on here have talked about not enjoying flying with LGBTIQ colleagues. Personally I've got no qualms. Like any other colleague they vary from awesome to 'below average' when it comes to my enjoyment of sharing a flight deck. Having fun flying an aeroplane is less about someone's sexual orientation than it is about their personality. Sure we don't tend to swap stories on the many issues that affect someone like me raising kids at school but that's neither here nor there. Some LGBTIQ colleagues are quite interested in what my kids are up to. A few LGBTIQ colleagues have kids having come out later in life and that's cool when we can share that experience of the trials, tribulations and joys of raising kids. In short, no problem. I'm sure my LGBTIQ colleagues would share similar views about flying with me.

The Mardi Gras and wider LGBTIQ political movement has achieved a lot of good. Anything that can reduce the violence perpetrated against people based on how they choose to live their life is a good thing. I'm not a fan of the style of the parade, the promiscuity or the increased risk taking behaviour the parade appears to promote (unsafe sex, drug and alcohol fuelled behviour including violence, etc) but I simply make a choice to not watch it. It does allow me to talk to my kids about our beliefs and values and how they are different to many others in the marketplace.

I disagree that the Mardi Gras is purely a 'cultural' event. At it's concept it was a political rally and I get the impression it remains an important political centrepiece of the LGBTIQ movement. You only need to see the uproar recently over whether to invite the PM to see even a small part of the politics at play. Most people older than 30 would still see it as a political rally masquerading as a cultural event. That makes it quite distinct from floriade or many other purely cultural events.

I disagree that this is simply smart marketing directed at a high spending demographic. About 2 million people attend churches of various denominations every week yet there is no effort to engage them on the issues that are important to them. To deny the political aspect of the stance Qantas has taken here is to deny reality. If it's 'smart marketing' then there are plenty of other groups that Qantas could be targeting. That they don't shows this to be a political act- which is what things dressed up as 'social justice' actually are.

Qantas has sponsored the Mardi Gras for a couple of years now and is vocal in the same sex marriage debate. They've launched a parallel campaign to the Rainbow roo called #equalityis. Interestingly, the video associated with that campaign is playing on TVs near some baggage claim belts. It's the only video of the few I watched the other day that has volume with it- all other videos were silent.

It's the political aspect that I'm disappointed has raised it's head so obviously now in the workplace. I felt somewhat uncomfortable when the 'recognise' Dash 8 was painted (a principle I agree with..... another discussion entirely). I view a company championing political issues similarly to how I view various superstars coming out for or against other political positions- I simply don't care what they think. The other question worth asking is why do they think I care what they have to say on the issue? (More on this point in another post at another time). Of course, I was relatively silent on the Dash 8 recognise campaign so I can't be too surprised that Qantas has continued to champion it's preferred political causes.

Previously Qantas has allowed people time off to attend Mardi Gras, they've sponsored a float and so on. Apart from emails and links to stories this has remained relatively removed from the workplace. I can avoid going to the Mascot campus and seeing the rainbow tail used on the 'Gay380' float from last year's Mardi Gras. This aeroplane though actually IS my workplace. It's hard to avoid seeing this livery when you're flying the jet.

There are a number of people in Qantas (gay, straight, Christian, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, etc) who do not agree with same sex marriage and/or the Mardi Gras for religious, cultural, historical, societal or behavioural reasons. Yet now they're being forced to tacitly support the issue even though they hold strong beliefs to the contrary.

So how do I intend on responding?
1. At some stage I will talk to my manager and highlight the fact that I find this stance by Qantas to be an unwelcome political issue in my workplace- not to the extent that it impacts my work but clearly given the comments on this thread it's a highly charged issue that is occupying brain space amongst both supporters and opponents of the political issue.
2. I did consider whether refusing to fly the jet was an option. Were I to do so I'd need to consult with AIPA as it's no doubt got significant industrial consequences. I'd also need to let my Qantas manager know in advance if that's the road I was going to take. Of course, making that sort of call carries significant potential downside as well with being labelled a 'bigot' the least of my worries.
3. Ultimately though I've decided to fly it. Sure I won't be thrilled about it (for more than just the reasons highlighted above) but hopefully when someone asks me what I think about it (which they have already and I've not flown it yet and I'm sure they will again at some stage) I can explain those reasons and the basis behind them with some depth. That my friends (and some enemies) is the bit that excites me.

Keg
20th Feb 2017, 04:56
PS: Am I offended? No. At home though I can make a choice as to how much about the Mardi Gras I read/ watch. Hard to do that at work these days given the constant publicity in the daily emails and press releases, the gay380 tails around the office and now this jet.

Metro man
20th Feb 2017, 05:11
At one time homosexuality was illegal in Australia and prosecutions would result. Later on a blind eye was turned. Next it was legalised but stayed in the closet. Then it came out into the open. Now it is widely accepted.

I'm glad I left before it becomes compulsory.

le Pingouin
20th Feb 2017, 05:30
How come I haven't had gender reassignment surgery despite there being gender equality?

I'm glad you left too.

Pinky the pilot
20th Feb 2017, 06:11
How come I haven't had gender reassignment surgery despite there being gender equality?

With respect le Pingouin; Only you can answer that.

QuarterInchSocket
20th Feb 2017, 06:30
Keg - Well said, as always. Not that I think you will extract much value from this statement, but your sentiment is shared by many amongst the engineering rank and file but I doubt we'd handle things as tactfully or articulate our position as clearly as you can and have.

As far as the effectiveness of this flag thing on an airplane goes - I doubt it is enough to unseat the staunch and stubborn beings that seem to inhibit 'progress' on this particular matter, so the status-quo is likely to remain, albeit, with considerable feather roughage.

I ponder the <commercial> net gain of having this on our airplane... it obviously generates plenty of discussion, but does our organisations openly supportive position on gayness add to or subtract to our bottom line? I guess <and hope> some sort of commercial impact analysis would've been included in the business case prior to painting. I wonder if you can quantify its impact and how you'd do it?

le Pingouin
20th Feb 2017, 07:23
But we've had gender equality for some time now so surely it must be compulsory by now?!?

Tankengine
20th Feb 2017, 08:05
My view is that I really don't give a rats and would only know if I am flying that particular 330 is if I noticed on the walkaround. I have some gay friends but they are not too radical politically (they all fly one way or another) and I think would view the tail art somewhere between couldn't care less to "that's nice".
Thevflag is probably a transfer and will be there for a while and be taken off in a few months/years..

olster
20th Feb 2017, 13:23
Well said Keg, i agree and empathise with your stance and views. Regardless of personal orientation, painting an aircraft to represent gay issues is a political move and in my very humble opinion, inappropriate. Tolerance is key on a personal level but it should go both ways ( no pun intended).

redsnail
20th Feb 2017, 14:17
Keg
I might disagree with you on some things, however, your post is eloquent, honest and you've stated your case extremely well without resorting to abuse.
A very respectful and thoughtful post.

Potsie Weber
20th Feb 2017, 14:20
Australian Airlines and then Qantas always carried large groups of Brethren. Crews would often be pre-briefed when it was known a group was travelling and I have heard of extra stocks of Whiskey being loaded when large groups traveled as that's all they drank.

Not sure if extra Gin and Tonic is loaded on flights headed to Sydney at Mardi Gras time.

Evanelpus
20th Feb 2017, 15:57
Looks like a couple of decals to me, certainly not a repaint but if you know better, I stand corrected.

Personally, can't see what all the fuss is about

Keg
20th Feb 2017, 20:16
Thanks for the positive feedback Redsnail.

Ida down
21st Feb 2017, 00:40
Thankyou AP, I will have a word with Spellcheck.

Derfred
21st Feb 2017, 01:25
I have to disagree with you there, Keg.

Same-sex marriage may be a political issue, but LGBTIQ awareness and tolerance is a cultural issue.

Sponsorship of the Gay Mardi Gras would have more to do with the sexual orientation of many of Qantas' employees rather than any political point Qantas as a company is trying to make.

And no, there is no cultural need for Qantas to sponsor your church or religion, as your church goers are not victimised, discriminated against and abused in the way the LGBTIQ community is.

Tolerance can only be achieved slowly, and only through constant exposure. Qantas has chosen to be part of that exposure.

Keg, you may have your beliefs, but you are not a bigot. Unfortunately, there are others still out there who are.

Reasoning
21st Feb 2017, 01:30
Keg, don't even pretend for a second that Qantas employees with religious beliefs have any kind of the same intellectual or moral standing on their position towards same-sex marriage as those who actually have the ability to reason and understand that those beliefs are not based in any kind of reality.

Thank you to Qantas leadership for continuing to champion and advocate for LGBTI rights and PR. This is both far more morally and intellectually sound than the position that any of your employees with 'religious beliefs' might hold, which continue to cause negative mental and physical health outcomes for LGBTI people world wide.

Keg
21st Feb 2017, 01:52
G'day Derfred, sadly I suspect you're right with your final statement.

I'm not going to try and 'out- victim' the LGBTIQ community here. Clearly they've been on the end of some pretty vicious attacks over the decades. I do want to pick up on one issue though.

..... as your church goers are not victimised, discriminated against and abused in the way the LGBTIQ community is.

Not at the moment no- at least not widespread. However if you ask the Park Royal hotel near Sydney Airport in the aftermath of the ACL sponsored meeting scheduled there last year, or the staff at ACL who receive weekly threats against their welfare, I think they may disagree. When threats of violence are made against Christian groups for simply meeting together to discuss SSM and an individual (admittedly mentally ill one) attempts to firebomb the ACL offices in Canberra then I start to wonder whether more tolerance (not necessarily agreement) is needed on all sides of the discussion.

Still, it's nice to be able to agree to disagree politely on this forum and without any adverse name calling or animosity. Heck, in many respects this discussion has been far more civil than a couple of others that I was involved with prior to Christmas. Maybe there is hope for us all yet! :ok: :D

Derfred
21st Feb 2017, 02:16
I start to wonder whether more tolerance (not necessarily agreement) is needed on all sides of the discussion.

Couldn't agree more.

E&H
21st Feb 2017, 04:35
Keg, derfred...great posts. My only comment would be that the argument about LGBTI seems to now be very political. Perhaps it had to be that way to force change, but in doing so, it in my opinion, is harming the other side of the argument. As a result another group of people find themselves being persecuted for having their opinions and voicing them...that is equally wrong, and just as bad.

Reasoning
21st Feb 2017, 05:58
The reason it has become political is because there are public policies directly affecting the rights of LGBTI people and their families (and, by extension, public attitudes towards LGBTI people).

I agree that sometimes people forwarding this left-wing agenda are not as respectful as they should be, overly emotional - even, and shutting down discussion. People should be able to voice their opinions, but again we should not pretend for a second that opinions are equally valuable morally or intellectually.

If the discussion were gender rights or racial marriage etc., we shouldn't even need to have the discussion in 2017. Anyone that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalised because of religious beliefs are literally wrong - intellectually wrong because the religious beliefs are not founded in truth (as anyone who has genuine intellectual curiosity, reasoning or science skills will tell you) and also morally wrong because of its emotional and social impact of LGBTI people and their families.

I appreciate that at least some here who are subtlety expressing anti-gay marriage views do so tactfully, but please unless you event a time machine do realise that your views are wrong.

le Pingouin
21st Feb 2017, 12:53
Keg and Defred, with respect to tolerance, the problem is the intolerance of homosexuality (etc) always starts with "I don't like what you are" (that's the politest version) and the the other side is silent on the matter until that is said.

You're asking people who have been abused, assaulted, discriminated against, convicted of criminal offences for being what they are. When was the last time Christians as a group suffered that in Australia?

PDR1
21st Feb 2017, 12:59
When was the last time Christians as a group suffered that in Australia?

11th June last year, in Brisbane (39-28).

PDR

le Pingouin
21st Feb 2017, 13:02
You'll have to remind me. If you're meaning a few Christians wanting to hold a meeting, no that isn't Christians as a group. That's just a few people.

PDR1
21st Feb 2017, 13:06
It was he australian 1st XV whose despairing appeal to the lord went unheard...

PDR

le Pingouin
21st Feb 2017, 13:23
No bloody wonder, they were short three men!

VHFRT
21st Feb 2017, 13:55
Not at the moment no- at least not widespread. However if you ask the Park Royal hotel near Sydney Airport in the aftermath of the ACL sponsored meeting scheduled there last year, or the staff at ACL who receive weekly threats against their welfare, I think they may disagree. When threats of violence are made against Christian groups for simply meeting together to discuss SSM and an individual (admittedly mentally ill one) attempts to firebomb the ACL offices in Canberra then I start to wonder whether more tolerance (not necessarily agreement) is needed on all sides of the discussion.

I certainly have a lot of respect for you, your position within the company and the generally supportive positions you take, however I do have to raise a bit of an issue with such a claim. The ACL is nothing more than a hate group similar to the KKK. They do nothing but campaign against equal rights and this is why more and more folk are trying to distance themselves from the group.

Religion is a choice. One you are more than entitled to. It is a choice that less and less people are making but that doesn't take away from one having the right to decide one way or another. Sexuality, gender and race cannot be chosen. It is not fair to compare the two.

Society tollerates Christians knocking on our doors each weekend asking us about our faith, but would we tollerate Muslims doing the same? Of course not.

Stationair8
22nd Feb 2017, 01:44
Suppose you blokes are going to get upset about the three female QF flight attendants appearing on the Channel 9 show Travel Guides?
.

maggot
22nd Feb 2017, 02:41
Well that point is very open to debate at present and the thinking is very fluid, so I don't think you should really be holding it up as necessarily being true. Plenty of people have switched from gay to straight and both sides of the gender divide, suggesting that it is more of a choice than the Gay Lobby would like to admit to.

Seemingly only to those with an ideological bent

AerialPerspective
22nd Feb 2017, 03:26
I certainly have a lot of respect for you, your position within the company and the generally supportive positions you take, however I do have to raise a bit of an issue with such a claim. The ACL is nothing more than a hate group similar to the KKK. They do nothing but campaign against equal rights and this is why more and more folk are trying to distance themselves from the group.

Religion is a choice. One you are more than entitled to. It is a choice that less and less people are making but that doesn't take away from one having the right to decide one way or another. Sexuality, gender and race cannot be chosen. It is not fair to compare the two.

Society tollerates Christians knocking on our doors each weekend asking us about our faith, but would we tollerate Muslims doing the same? Of course not.
Not only that, STOP characterizing the 'attack' in Canberra on a mentally ill person... the Police extensively interviewed the person concerned who turned himself in after going to hospital for severe burns and the whole thing was found to be a coincidence (they do happen). Secondly, VHFRT you care completely right. Personally, I am one of those who chose not to believe in invisible deities and get my wisdom from a book that was written when the world was thought to be flat. All religions are in decline because there is simply too much scientific knowledge about how things happened now that we don't need the fanciful stories anymore. Thank goodness we are not like the USA where people in power with access to a nuclear arsenal actually believe the world is only 4000 years old. That's fine to believe, but not if you're affecting others lives through government decisions. As for ACL, I personally am sick to death of Shelton's quiet spoken and softly delivered appeal to inequality simply because a book written by desert dwellers who lived in lean-to's 4000 years ago thought it was evil.

Berealgetreal
22nd Feb 2017, 04:19
Can't believe this thread has been top of D-Godzone for weeks.

j3pipercub
22nd Feb 2017, 09:24
^^
Yeap, certainly a lot of people who care too much about what others do in the privacy of their own homes enough to vent about a crappy paint job.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
22nd Feb 2017, 12:31
Anyone that thinks that gay marriage should not be legalised because of religious beliefs are literally wrong
No they aren't. They just hold a different opinion and belief system to you. One which they are perfectly entitled to hold, just as you hold yours. Are people not allowed to hold different opinions, likes and dislikes now?
People should be able to voice their opinions, but again we should not pretend for a second that opinions are equally valuable morally or intellectually.
Why, just because it differs from yours?
Look up tolerance in the dictionary, and then have a look in the mirror.

reivilo
22nd Feb 2017, 13:13
Well that point is very open to debate at present and the thinking is very fluid, so I don't think you should really be holding it up as necessarily being true. Plenty of people have switched from gay to straight and both sides of the gender divide, suggesting that it is more of a choice than the Gay Lobby would like to admit to.

Whether or not sexual or gender orientation is fluid, fact is that LGBTQI people are being discriminated for something which is not a choice.
If you are suggesting that being gay or transgender is a choice, clearly you haven't thought about this for more than a second. Why would someone choose to be gay, knowing that he/she will not be accepted by many others?

What Ūs a choice, is coming out for your feelings. Sadly many girls and guys stay in the closet for many years because they are scared to come out. Being bullied at home, school or at work is not something many people fancy. Or having to cope with colleagues who 'just don't like gay people'. Well, no thanks.

We can all do something about this. Open up to other people. Accept that not everyone is the same and don't let stereotypes dominate your feelings about others.
I think it's great that Qantas takes a lead in this debate. The company sends a message to all employees and customers with the sponsoring of Marty Gras. They want an open workplace where everyone will judge people for who they are, in stead of for what they are.

Having to live with a secret, 'acting' to be straight. It must be very depressing.
And in general, very boring. Why don't you just accept that all people are different? Why do so many people not accept the simple truth that same sex marriage is a normal and civil right. Why do some religious groups want to limit other people in living a happy family life? Just because they believe so? That's their choice. No-one forces them to have a same sex marriage. What are they scared of? Stay out of it if you dislike it. But don't limit others in becoming as happy as you are.
Live and let live.

le Pingouin
22nd Feb 2017, 13:17
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, but the problem is they aren't just limiting themselves to an opinion but are actually imposing their belief system on others.

It's pretty simple - you are free to impose the practices of whatever belief system you wish on yourself and other consenting parties but aren't free to impose them on anyone else.

Keg
22nd Feb 2017, 13:48
J3pipercub and berealgetreal. No one forcing you guys to buy into this. Either join in or don't. Your call.

Interesting Aerial Perspective The offender in Canberra was 'known to police' and had previously expressed anti Christian sentiments. It's was not the 'coincidence' that you suggest it was but neither can it be classified as a considered and rational act (as much as these things can ever be anyway). That comes direct from a federal copper with 'knowledge of the case'. Interesting though that the crime scene was cleaned and evidence removed before first light the next morning. Highly unusual. A tangent for another day.

This direction this thread has gone though shows the difficulty surrounding discussing this issue is and the inevitable direction it heads. So a quick summary of the last page.

The view held by many people in Australia that marriage should be between one man and one woman has on this thread been compared with racial segregation and labelled 'morally wrong' by pro SSM proponents.

A Christian group standing up for the family and proper upbringing of kids, standing up for traditional marriage; standing up to prevent the sexualisation of children in the advertising; standing up for the poor against gambling, alcohol and drug addition, standing up for the needy in Australian society and around the world, standing up to stop prostitution and sex exploitation, standing up for the right of parents to not have their kids told at school that their gender is 'fluid', has been labelled a 'hate group'. Worse, violence against them has been pretty much excused on that basis.

Le Pingouin asks for examples of the sort of thing that sadly some LGBTIQ people have experienced happening to Christians and then when provided examples excludes the examples as 'just a few people', and not 'Christians as a group'. I forgot to mention the churches in Victoria that have been firebombed in recent years too. You can't have it both ways here. You can't say that bad acts against some gay people occurred to the LGBTIQ community as a whole and then dismiss similar bad acts against some Christians not being agains the Christian community. I don't mind disagreeing with people but please be consistent with your principles.

Personally I don't like getting into a 'who is the biggest victim' type debate. Clearly many LGBTIQ people have suffered much over the years and that is regrettable. Here and now though? In the 21st century?

It's pretty clear that I'm a Christian bloke and much how someone being gay would be fundamental to who they are and influences the way they view the world, a Christian is who I am and influences the way I view the world. Being a Christian for me is as much 'choice' as someone who is same sex attracted has a choice. Being a Christian is fundamental and core to who I am. There are times when I've thought life would probably be easier were I NOT be a Christian. Does this line of thought sound familiar? (There is an interesting side discsioon here about people who also see their identities as a 'Christian' but are same sex attracted. Stuff by Sam Alberry in the U.K. is quite good).

It's actually not that often that Christians knock on doors asking about faith. It's a popular evangelism tool used by the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses but the fact VHFRT doesn't really understand the difference between them and Christians tells me quite a bit. Personally I've no qualms if a Muslim wants to knock on my door. It'd be an awesome opportunity. I'd ask them for their evidence of how the Quran can say Jesus was a 'good teacher' when he actually claimed to be the Son of God- he was either a loon or who he claimed to be; or how the Gospel accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection were corrupted between when they were written 20-30 years after Jesus compared to when Muhammad claimed they were corrupted 600 years later.

I get that people may choose to believe that science has replaced the bible (an assertion very few people have actually looked at with anything approaching intellectual rigour which is ironic when they're claiming that science has rendered the Bible out of date) though I'd suggest that science does more to affirm the bible than to the contrary. In reality though this is a seperate discussion entirely but someone who classified the bible as ' book written by desert dwellers who lived in lean-to's 4000 years ago' clearly doesn't know as much about the book they malign as they should. Again, by all means study it and then dismiss it but to dismiss it without even knowing what it is? So much for the intellectual argument.

So to summarise: those who disagree with SSM are intolerant and the equivalent of racists. Violence against Christians is only against 'some people', not Christians as a group. Violence against 'some people' who happen to be Christians is OK if they're labelled 'hate groups' by those who disagree with them. People who believe in the Bible are unthinking morons who believe in fairy tales and don't believe in science. Did I miss any?

PS: marriage isn't a 'right'. It's something the government got involved with because of the importance of family to society. i guess we can go down that particular rabbit hole another night.

Keg
22nd Feb 2017, 13:55
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, but the problem is they aren't just limiting themselves to an opinion but are actually imposing their belief system on others. .

I've had this line of argument trotted out before. Have you looked in the mirror? Are you not imposing your belief system on others? You believe in SSM. You believe it's a 'right'. You seek to impose that on all of society.

In reality you're doing the exact same thing the ACL is doing. You're attempting to convince people that your beliefs are right, that the views contrary to yours are Wong, and your view should be supported by society.

It's such a shallow, vacuous line of argument, devoid of any self awareness, and it holds no water when discussing the wider issue of SSM.

Keg
22nd Feb 2017, 14:03
I think it's great that Qantas takes a lead in this debate. The company sends a message to all employees and customers with the sponsoring of Marty Gras. They want an open workplace where everyone will judge people for who they are, in stead of for what they are.
.

Qantas has been an 'open workplace' such as you describe since well before I joined 22 years ago. Theyve had an openly gay CEO since 2008. They didn't need to sponsor the Mardi Gras to send this message. It's been part of who we are for yonks.

in fact, this campaign for me has in fact wound back that 'open workplace'. I'm very conscious that what I post here could be used against me in the workplace. A lot of others who disagree with SSM are equally concerned about what this campaign could mean in the future if a contrary opinion is proffered at the wrong time or place.

le Pingouin
22nd Feb 2017, 14:13
Keg, I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm not denying you anything. You however are denying something to to those who wish to enter into SSM. That's the difference and those who oppose SSM can't see that or wilfully ignore it. It has zero impact on your personal rights to believe what you want, practice whatever faith or belief system you want and doesn't inhibit anything you do.

It's exactly the same argument as for rights based on gender or "race". Or are they vacuous too?

le Pingouin
22nd Feb 2017, 14:20
And the argument about "family" is irrelevant - that boat has long sailed. We have divorce, there is no requirement to have children in wedlock and same-sex couples already raise kids.

reivilo
22nd Feb 2017, 14:49
Keg thanks for answering but could you please answer le Pingouin and my question: Why do you impose your beliefs on others while others don't impose anything on you?

crablab
22nd Feb 2017, 15:25
I think people spend far too long going round in circles getting wound up about a very simple concept.
Is it really that hard to just get along with everyone?

In response to the many, "why is there gay Pride and not Christian/Muslim/Straight/insert alternative Pride" - the answer of course being the long history of unjustified persecution of a large number of people based on something really rather irrelevant. To wheel out the rather cliche example - Alan Turing. Did the fact he was gay make him any less of a brilliant mathematical mind? Of course not.

So why should it affect any other person, with other beliefs? As long as their belief doesn't hurt anybody I don't see the problem.

As one of the "younger generation" I'm afraid to report that we see this discrimination as a hallmark of those older people...

Beer Baron
22nd Feb 2017, 16:42
Keg, you write some thoughtful posts but on the issue of SSM I think you can't see past your own personal beliefs.
You seek to impose that on all of society.
One group of people seek to withold a right/privilege/activity from another group, whereas the other group seeks to make the right/privilege/activity avalible to all. You can not suggest that each group are equally trying to force their beliefs on the other.

If aboriginals or women were still not allowed to vote would you suggest it unfair for them to impose their right to vote on the white male society who already could vote? No, because the white men already could vote. Nothing was being imposed on them. The right to vote was simply being extended to the rest of society.

Your marriage is NOT affected by a gay person getting married. Take Mrs Keg on holiday to Ireland or California and you will see that nothing changes in your marriage as a result of the fact that there gay people legally married walking around in those places.

My point being; There is a big difference between seeking to specifically exclude a group of people from an activity versus seeking to have all people be equally entitled to it.

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 03:21
One group of people seek to withold a right/privilege/activity from another group, whereas the other group seeks to make the right/privilege/activity avalible to all. You can not suggest that each group are equally trying to force their beliefs on the other.



After much consideration, I've decided to refer to my "dog" a "camel". In fact I demand that all of society refer to my dog as a camel. Camels have four legs and dogs have four legs therefore I reject the traditional definition of a "dog" and suggest that anyone not adhering to my demand is trying to force their beliefs on me.

Seeing as changing the definition doesn't appear to me to have any affect on traditional dog owners in society I see no reason as to why everyone won't aquiesce to my demands on this animal rights issue. If society doesn't tow my line then I shall resort to name calling in an attempt to force traditional dog owning society to bend to my demands lest they be considered biggots.

After all, there must be some other country in the world that refers to dogs as camels. I shall raise this country as a golden standard of "camel" (formerly "dog") ownership, even though dog owners in this country were previously able to think for themselves. Of course we could have a public vote on this contentious issue but I fear that society may reject my new dog-camel definition so I'll accuse the whole of society of being camel hating biggots in order to force an act of parliament.

le Pingouin
23rd Feb 2017, 03:42
Except that marriage is just a legal construct and easily can be redefined. Just ask John Howard.

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 03:47
Except that marriage is just a legal construct and easily can be redefined. Just ask John Howard.


Great. Does that mean that I can marry my camel (formerly dog)?

Fonz121
23rd Feb 2017, 04:05
That's quite the intellectual argument you've put forward there Joe. Well done.

SLFAussie
23rd Feb 2017, 04:24
The laws of (civil) marriage essentially allows two consenting adults who are not already family members (that is, not related by blood) the voluntary ability to say that they are next of kin and claim the legal rights and fulfill the legal obligations that the law applies to those who are next of kin. This includes - among many things - inheritance, custody of children, medical decision making (should a spouse be incapable), tax and social security. Other laws (divorce) allow the next of kin status to be dissolved.

There have been many cases where the death of one member of a same sex couple has caused the surviving member to be left destitute because in the absence of a will the legal next of kin (typically a parent) has legal claim over the deceased's assets. If a partner is unconscious in hospital then uncooperative parents can prevent that person's same sex partner from making medical decisions and even prevent the partner visiting. I could go on. This would not apply if the partners could legally marry.

Civil marriage is quite separate to a religious blessing. In Australia, a religious minister can perform both the religious and the legal unions, however there is no obligation in Australia for a religious union and marriage can be completely secular. In countries like France, a the civil part of the marriage and the religious part of a marriage are performed separately because of France's rigorous separation of church and state. The overwhelming majority of LGBTI people don't want religious marriages where the religion forbids it, nor the right to marry in places of worship that are hostile to same sex marriage.

John Howard changed the marriage act to specifically state that civil marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Australian law says that LGBTI people aren't equal to other Australians by denying the right to legally nominate next of kin, in the simple legal act of marriage. North America, nearly all of Western Europe, New Zealand and large parts of South America now recognise same sex marriage. Qantas' CEO could marry his partner either in his or his partner's country of origin, but not in the country that they live.

parabellum
23rd Feb 2017, 05:04
I think a lot of people don't object to a gay civil union with all the strength of a heterosexual marriage, it is the use of the word 'Marriage' that upsets people, find an appropriate word or phrase, claim it, as with the word 'Gay' and much of the opposition would disappear. In the Catholic church I think I am correct in saying that marriage is a sacrament, despite what the current Pope may say I don't see the Catholic church in Australia agreeing to gay 'marriage'.

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 05:10
According to the authority of Wikipedia, all Australian states and territories recognise de-facto relationships (including same sex) wrt next of kin and property rights.

maggot
23rd Feb 2017, 05:17
At some point government needs to take the lead and say this is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating, and needs to stop.

At some point some so-called christians need to take the lead and love their brothers, instead to trying to change/fix/shame them, driving some fine men to take their own lives or live in the shadows without the love of their very own family!

Now *that* is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating and needs to stop!

Hang your head in shame, some christian you are.

Live and let live,peace. And so long to this thread...

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 06:24
At some point some so-called christians need to take the lead and love their brothers, instead to trying to change/fix/shame them, driving some fine men to take their own lives or live in the shadows without the love of their very own family!

Now *that* is wrong, unhealthy, socially devastating and needs to stop!

Hang your head in shame, some christian you are.

Live and let live,peace. And so long to this thread...
Reply

So. Are you;

1. An expert in suicide. I which case you can access verifiable statistics directly linking suicide to the 1961 marriage act? Or;

2. An expert in theology? Giving you authority to lecture "christians". Or;

3. Using the threat of self harm to gain some sort of twisted moral high ground over the opinions of those whom you view as inferior? (Because it seemed to work for Bill Shorten).

I'll assume it's one of the former, as only a complete moral bankrupt would attempt to use suicide as an attack against those they disagree with.

Jetstarpilot
23rd Feb 2017, 06:35
God botherers lost their claim to moral authority (http://library.aifs.gov.au/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/5?srchfield1=691&searchdata1=Clergy%20or%20Church%20or%20%27Residential%20ins titutions%27&srchfield2=691&searchdata2=%27Child%20abuse%27%20or%20%27Child%20sexual%20a buse%27%20or%20%27Child%20neglect%27%20or%20%27Child%20prote ction%27&searchoper1=AND&sort_by=-PBYR) a long time ago....

Peaedo kiddy fiddlers:mad:

Ida down
23rd Feb 2017, 07:04
How did aircraft colors, come to this? My question is, why was an aircraft taken off line to be painted in gay colors? Was it a commercial choice? A personal choice by the CEO? Is it acceptable that The National Carrier bearing the Australian flag, advertise an event that some don't find remotely acceptable? Is it different to the Wallaby paint job? Indignous? Red Nose, Breast Cancer? If the next CEO is a devote Catholic can he have the Vatican painted on one side? Where does it end? Instead, we have a brawl between straights and gays. I am a white, straight, old bloke, still married to the same woman, so in todays eyes, a boring old fa#t who should know better. 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?

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 07:04
Zero moral authority
God botherers lost their claim to moral authority a long time ago....

Peaedo kiddy fiddlers

Homosexual Paedophile kiddy fiddlers. (Thanks for making the link for me)

Jetstarpilot
23rd Feb 2017, 07:24
Good one psyco ...

Like adding homo make it worse:rolleyes:

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 07:51
Good one psyco ...

Like adding homo make it worse


Well no, just pointing out a fact.

You tried to make a connection between religion and child molestation. Yet the link that you gave demonstrated abuse perpetrated by individuals in both religious and secular institutions, virtually all of whom were homosexual. So the link (if any) is one of homosexuality and unfettered access to children.

By all means roll your eyes as much as you want.

Jetstarpilot
23rd Feb 2017, 07:58
Yeah... like there's been no link shown between organised Christian religions and peadoes in Auz:rolleyes:

Ken Borough
23rd Feb 2017, 08:50
Yeah but there are other organisations 'in the box' as well as the Christian Churches. For example, we heard of abuse at the Scouts, swimming, YMCA as well as the do-gooders who transported young children from Blight to Oz in the 1940s and 1950s. Just sayin"

Jetstarpilot
23rd Feb 2017, 08:54
Ok, you got me.... I'm convinced... it wuz ok cause everyone wuz a paedo:rolleyes:

HighAndFlighty
23rd Feb 2017, 09:16
Ok, you got me.... I'm convinced... it wuz ok cause everyone wuz a paedo:rolleyes:
That is exactly the case.

AerialPerspective
23rd Feb 2017, 09:16
Yeah... like there's been no link shown between organised Christian religions and peadoes in Auz:rolleyes:
Or everywhere else around the world... what was it, 4000 cases in the Greater Boston area in the US alone... and not sure the other institutions have carried out the world-wide perversion of justice that some of the churches have and for as long and to the degree.

AerialPerspective
23rd Feb 2017, 09:20
Yeah but there are other organisations 'in the box' as well as the Christian Churches. For example, we heard of abuse at the Scouts, swimming, YMCA as well as the do-gooders who transported young children from Blight to Oz in the 1940s and 1950s. Just sayin"
Um, Scouts is a Christian based organization, YMCA stands for Young Men's CHRISTIAN Association... so it is more prevalent and some would say orchestrated and allowed to flourish in Church related organizations... they had the advantage of having indoctrinated young people, threatening them with hell or God's wrath if they told anyone. Let's not kid ourselves.

AerialPerspective
23rd Feb 2017, 09:27
Keg, I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm not denying you anything. You however are denying something to to those who wish to enter into SSM. That's the difference and those who oppose SSM can't see that or wilfully ignore it. It has zero impact on your personal rights to believe what you want, practice whatever faith or belief system you want and doesn't inhibit anything you do.

It's exactly the same argument as for rights based on gender or "race". Or are they vacuous too?
Agree 100%. Not that it matters but I am 'straight' and I am a very big supporter of SSM. I have a number of friends who are in long term same sex relationships and it is not the business of the State to tell them who they can marry. It should just be legislated. That is why we have a Constitution that confers certain powers on the Commonwealth and marriage is one of them... there was no plebiscite when Howard arbitrarily changed the Marriage Act over a decade ago to suit his own Christian beliefs and there should be no need for one now. Marriage, contrary to popular myth does not belong to the church, neither does the word. This is not about faith and it's not about preference, it's simply about equality under the law. If companies like Qantas and the others that are pushing this to the forefront in the community didn't do this it would not get as much attention. If people follow a religion and don't agree with SSM then just keep your beliefs to yourself and let the rest of us believe and support what we want - we don't need your 'moral' code from what is a quite immoral book in many ways imposed on us... if such people ever get invited to a SSM just politely decline. The continent isn't going to tilt to the right and disappear under the Pacific Ocean when SSM is enacted. Let's not forget the Bible also puts forward that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, the contrary opinion to which it was prepared to torture and persecute people for holding for hundreds of years...

Keg
23rd Feb 2017, 09:29
Talk about appalling. This thread was going down hill and High and Flighty"s comments are appalling. That said, some of the follow up stuff has been equally appalling.

I had a longer response to other points raised but I'll leave that for tomorrow. For the time being though, it's been eons since either the Scouts or the YMCA have been 'christian' organisations. My scoutmaster in the early '80s was an atheist. To conflate them as other than that is propaganda at its finest.

Bull at a Gate
23rd Feb 2017, 09:53
HighAndFlighty - pprune at its worst. I can't believe this topic deserved a single post let alone 11 pages. The whole thread should be deleted as it is only giving the worst of pprune a forum to spill bile and hatred.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
23rd Feb 2017, 10:39
it is not the business of the State to tell them who they can marry

It is the business of the state, and it does it all the time. You can't marry someone who is already lawfully married, you can't marry someone under age, you can't marry someone you've adopted, you can't marry your ancestor or your descendant, you can't marry your brother or sister, you can't marry someone who is mentally incapable of understanding the process, you can't marry someone without their proper consent etc etc. What makes any of these different. They are just social constructs after all. Ultimately the state can and will dictate who you can marry based on whatever social mores are in place at the time.

chuboy
23rd Feb 2017, 11:05
Any reasonable person would agree that lesbianness, gayness, queerness, non-hetero sexual etecetcness broadly fit into one of the following three categories:

(a) lifestyle choice

(b) mental illness, or

(c) genetic defect

Actually no, I don't agree. Does that make me an unreasonable person?

Lookleft
23rd Feb 2017, 11:38
Qantas are taking quite an overt stance on the issue of SSM as there is advertising in support of it in their terminals. I wonder what equalitycampaign are paying for their advertising. What started as a discussion on colours painted on the side of a plane has now become a discussion on the issue of SSM and it has also gone beyond the sponsorship of the Mardi Gras. It should be moved to Jet Blast. I think its interesting that the plebiscite was voted down because of the alleged hate speech that would ensue and create mental health problems for teenage LGBTIQ (still no one has answered what the difference is between the G and the Q BTW). Given Kegs reasonable post about his beliefs (that I also share) and the vilification that he has received in response, I wonder what the Labor party was really concerned about in blocking the plebiscite legislation. I am confident that there would be a lot of "hate" speech and anger directed at one group engaging in the discussion, I just don't think that you can automatically assume that it is the LGBTIQ community.

psycho joe
23rd Feb 2017, 21:58
The plebiscite bid failed because internal Labor polling showed that they backed the wrong horse. The SSM crowd are using the same failed tactics that were used by the republic movement in the late 90's and are equally doomed to fail. Australians hate forced cultural change. They hate being told what to think. They despise being told that they need to reflect the cultural mores of another country and they hate specious arguments dressed up as "equality". These tactics work in political circles and in inner city Melbourne and eastern Sydney, but politicians and the media forget that Australia is bigger than a few suburbs. (I can't help but notice the lack of technicolor flags on QANTAS aircraft flying into regional airports, nor gay advertising at same.)

Marriage is a social cultural construct and as such the Australian people will determine the requirements, as is our right as a democracy. It is true that Howard legislated that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is also true that this represents Australian society and the intent of the Australian marriage act of 1961. In 1961 it was never thought that cohabitating gays would try to appropriate the term marriage.

Reading these pages it would seem that the bigger issue most pro SSM people have, is the fact that the tenets from which our social construct was built were founded on Judeo Christian principles. It would seem that this (SSM) is merely a convenient vehicle for people to rail against society. If your push for SSM is based on hatred then your argument is no better than the worst biggot.

Fonz121
23rd Feb 2017, 22:35
If your push for SSM is based on hatred...

Yeah, I don't think anyone is doing that.

Unlike the religious right, people pushing for SSM don't actually care what anyone else does in their personal lives.

The bible will probably even be updated one day as it invariably does, to reflect SSM being the societal norm it will no doubt eventually be.

It has a habit of doing that. As soon as something starts been seeing as bit too barbaric for current times God seems to have a change of heart and orders old mate to come out with a new hip version that the kids can get down with.

I'm not sure who's actually writing this thing though. It would be nice to know who has a direct line of communication with God. I've got a few questions for him.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 00:04
Unlike the religious right, people pushing for SSM don't actually care what anyone else does in their personal lives.

That's a false assertion. I don't care what people do in their personal lives but the issue of marriage and the strength of it is a societal issue. We've seen quite clearly how society is trending these days with marriage breaks down and what has occurred since marriage has decreased in the seriousness it was once held. Perhaps the 'religious right' are actually concerned about upholding something that is good for families (that children know and are brought up by their biological mother and father), good for society, and aren't keen to see something put forward that is likely to further diminish the status of marriage and result in kids being brought up without knowing their Mum or Dad. At least traditional marriage doesn't design this as an outcome right from the start.


The bible will probably even be updated one day as it invariably does, to reflect SSM being the societal norm it will no doubt eventually be.

Have you read it? Do you understand biblical teaching on marriage? Sure it can be updated if you want to remove Jesus teaching on marriage from the Bible but then it wouldn't be Christianity anyway.


It has a habit of doing that. As soon as something starts been seeing as bit too barbaric for current times God seems to have a change of heart and orders old mate to come out with a new hip version that the kids can get down with.

I'm presuming you've got some examples to back home that assertion? The Bible's teaching has been unchanged across the the 5000+ manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts dating back to the 1st and 2nd century AD through until the late Middle Ages. Sure, when the original Greek or Aramaic has been translated over the years it's had changes from thees and thous to a more modern vernacular (including an Aussie slang version of the Gospel of Mark that is a fantastic read) but those translations were still done from one of the very early Greek or Aramaic manuscripts.


I'm not sure who's actually writing this thing though. It would be nice to know who has a direct line of communication with God. I've got a few questions for him.

Some great answers to the first point in Lee Strobel's book 'The Case for Christ'. Former atheist, investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. Originally sought to disprove the bible when his wife became a Christian. Once having done his 'investigation' decided that his only option was to join her as a Christian. Book available on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

Never know. Perhaps after reading his book and reading the Bible you may work out the answer to the second point so you can ask your questions.

Potsie Weber
24th Feb 2017, 00:36
That's a false assertion. I don't care what people do in their personal lives but the issue of marriage and the strength of it is a societal issue. We've seen quite clearly how society is trending these days with marriage breaks down and what has occurred since marriage has decreased in the seriousness it was once held. Perhaps the 'religious right' are actually concerned about upholding something that is good for families (that children know and are brought up by their biological mother and father), good for society, and aren't keen to see something put forward that is likely to further diminish the status of marriage and result in kids being brought up without knowing their Mum or Dad. At least traditional marriage doesn't design this as an outcome right from the start.

I think it is more empowerment than a decline in seriousness. It wasn't that long ago when women were shunned for leaving their husbands. No matter how much of a boozer, wife basher, child basher or womaniser he may have been. The societal strength was that a woman had no way out of domestic violence for "what god has joined together, let no man separate". There was no support for women or children to escape from domestic violence or even just pure unhappiness in marriage.

I can only imagine what many women thought, sitting in church being lectured on the sanctity of marriage.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 01:55
G'day Potsie. Does your example not indicate that there is a husband who doesn't comprehend the seriousness of marriage and his role as a husband? IE the original principle about the seriousness of marriag still holds. People don't treat marriage as it ought to be treated. Sometimes that's the husband. Sometimes that's the wife. Either way, the point still holds. Anything that diminishes the strength of the marital structure is a bad thing.

The Christian teaching on marriage is for husbands to give of themselves as Christ gave of himself for the church. That's a pretty big ask for husbands. To basically be willing to put the needs of their wives in front of their own. It's a bigger ask than that really when the Christian teaching is that Jesus went to the cross for the failings of humanity- iE the church. As a husband it's a command I often find daunting in it's hugenesss.

So the teaching on marriage has been consistent, the practise of it by frail and crappy humans on the other hand....

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 02:07
I was going to post this the other day. Some of its already been covered but to re-edit will take as long as it took to write originally. Sorry if there is a little bit of repetition of some of the principles I've already advanced. They're probably explained a bit more in depth here though.

I disagree that the SSM proponents are trying to make marriage 'available to all'. They may dress the argument up as 'equality' but I'd have more respect for the principle they were putting forward if they championed the 'right' for people to marry 'whomever they like' as they often suggest. If it actually is 'marriage equality' then why not open it up to Muslims and let them marry 2-3 different wives or indeed anyone who is interested in a polygamous relationship. So I reject the proffered principle that the SSM debate is about 'equality'.

Of course, you will on occasion come across SSM proponents who actually do support extending the definition of marriage to include polygamous and other forms of marriage on the basis of 'equality'. I respect that they are least being intellectually honest when they discuss the principle of 'equality' but suspect that most Aussies would reject that proposition to fully embrace the principle of 'equality' and what it really means. Of course, another contributor has pointed out that the government does in fact prohibit certain relationships deeming them un suitable for marriage- sorry, can't remember who that was- so unless the SSM advocates are wanting to get rid of these restrictions also spare me the BS argument about #equalityforall.

I find it interesting that you say the issue of family is 'irrelevant' Le Pingouion. I think the research is pretty clear that family structure is important. Sure we have divorce (probably too much of it and I reckon an argument can be made that the ease of divorce has probably weakened the institution of marriage) but your line of thinking seems to be 'family structure is already so fractured that SSM fracturing it potentially more won't matter'. That's faulty logic. Heterosexual marriage is practised imperfectly so therefore SSM should be legislated so that it too can be imperfect? That's like when SSM proponents uphold Kim Kardashian getting married and divorced quickly as an example of why they should be allowed to marry. When some heterosexual people treat marriage as a convenience and a joke it doesn't automatically follow that SSM should be allowed because of the dumb things that heterosexual people do and gay people should be able to do that too. That's false logic and when Kim Kardahsian did what she did that weakened the concept of marriage for everyone. It cemented further in some people's minds that it's not an institution that is critically important for the make up of a society and most people who support traditional marriage are horrified at the way some people trash it.

In that respect I think that SSM proponents try and restrict the impact of SSM as not having an impact on my marriage and instead frame the argument around pro traditional marriage supporters as 'denying' someone else something- as we've seen in this thread. Reivelo and Le Pingouin believe they are not imposing anything on me when in fact they are- they're changing the definition of my marriage. They're putting forward the proposition that a mother and a father are irrelevant and the roles are interchangeable. Sure, some families do awesomely well without one or the other (and sometimes sadly both) but I suspect that deep down, most people would want a child to be brought up with the love and care of both their mother and father.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
24th Feb 2017, 03:05
The Christian teaching on marriage is for husbands to give of themselves as Christ gave of himself for the church.

I get pretty much crucified every time I'm late home from the pub. Does that count?

parabellum
24th Feb 2017, 03:25
Great posts Keg, very sound.

This is not about faith and it's not about preference, it's simply about equality under the law. If that is the case why all this fuss about calling it 'marriage', why not just select a word or phrase that is acceptable to the LGB crowd and go with it? Compromise and leave the word 'marriage' to heterosexual relationships?

plebiscite bid failed because internal Labor polling showed that they backed the wrong horse. Exactly, it suddenly dawned on them that talk of "at least 70% of Australians want SSM" was total nonsense and if the plebiscite was held SSM would be off the table for at least the next ten or twenty years. It also showed that the ALP may know something of the inner city and industrial areas but they know nothing of the wider Australia and the folks who live there. (nor do they care).

Ken Borough
24th Feb 2017, 03:27
most people would want a child to be brought up with the love and care of both their mother and father.

The truest words yet written on this thread. Some people have to raise children alone but as sure as day follows night, they wish they had a loving and caring oartner to share the burden (and joys). Well writ, Keg! :ok::D:D:D

One other thing, where do the proponents of SSM think they came from - the secont shelf of the third row at Colesworths? :\

Fool Sufferer
24th Feb 2017, 03:41
"The Case For Christ" is a work of unmitigated, easily refuted, tendentious garbage. For starters, https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html. It exists purely to reinforce the confirmation bias of the already pious, and has no merit as a work of purported critical investigation whatsoever.

Those attempting to cite this paean to irrationality and deficient scholarship, in order to provide an imprimatur to their line of "reasoning", have already lost the debate.

le Pingouin
24th Feb 2017, 03:41
How will SSM fracture family structure more then it already is? My grandmother divorced her husband some 80 years ago because he repeatedly bashed her. My mother was born out of wedlock as a result. It's an ancient problem.

You're using the idea that SSM fails to meet an ideal to say it's unsuitable when the reality is a large majority of opposite-sex marriages also fail to meet the ideal. You're holding those who want SSM to a higher standard than you do heterosexual marriage.

Most Australians weddings are civil not religious so how is the Christian ideal relevant to those people? It's certainly not relevant to me as I'm not Christian and neither is my wife. I apply my own standards to my marriage.

"Civil celebrants have overseen the majority of marriages since 1999 and the proportion of marriage ceremonies overseen by a civil celebrant increased again to 74.9 per cent of all marriages in 2015."

www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0 (http://www.pprune.org/www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0)

"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.

How are we changing the definition of your marriage? Explain that to me. Presumably you got married in a religious ceremony (which will be unchanged by SSM) and the civil part is just a legal contract that doesn't change for you - it is still between you and the missus.

Your marriage is still your marriage and Mrs Keg isn't suddenly going to want to include anyone else. The sun will still rise in the morning and the Keglets will still feel the same about their parents.

le Pingouin
24th Feb 2017, 03:49
parabellum, we're talking marriage, the legal contract, not Holy Matrimony the religious ceremony.

Ken, the loving partner can be the same sex. The loving partner could easily be a relative taking a role as carer.

Ummm, tell that to all the kids resulting from donor sperm or eggs, and all the adopted and fostered kids. Where did they come from?

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 05:07
As a couple a same sex couple have all the protections under law the same as any de facto relationship. That's a good thing as it protects the weaker (financial) of the partners in a relationship breakdown. It protects people in the event of death, etc. So the 'legal protection' of marriage idea is moot. A de facto couple of 22 years have basically the same legal rights as a same sex couple of 22 years as they do of my marriage of 22 years.

Which leads us to this line of thought.



You're using the idea that SSM fails to meet an ideal to say it's unsuitable when the reality is a large majority of opposite-sex marriages also fail to meet the ideal. You're holding those who want SSM to a higher standard than you do heterosexual marriage.


That some traditional marriages can't uphold the ideal doesn't mean that we subsequently 'trash' what the ideal should be. I'm holding up all traditional marriage to the same standard ideal.

When a traditional marriage breaks down people are normally 'making the best of a crap situation'. That's a bit different to setting up from the outset what will likely be a 'crap situation'- at least when it comes to families.

A same sex 'marriage' will not ever be able to conceive of a child and have that child raised by it's father and mother as part of a marriage relationship- the ideal that we should be aspiring to. From the outset, a SSM deliberately, overtly, and explicitly excludes one of the parents of the biological child from being in the loving relationship the child has a right to. This is quite a distinct issue from the situation where many single parent families make a great go with their kids despite the family breakdown. A mate of mine is a loving father and husband but he has always regretted not knowing his dad as well as he'd like to because of family breakdown when he was young.

SSM doesn't 'make the best of a bad deal', it sets out with the 'best of a bad deal' being part of the inherent structure of involving children and being the absolute best that can be hoped for.


Most Australians weddings are civil not religious so how is the Christian ideal relevant to those people? It's certainly not relevant to me as I'm not Christian and neither is my wife. I apply my own standards to my marriage.

Sure. By all means apply your own standards. Personally I'd love to see kids only being born to families that have made a life long commitment to each other. I'd like to see husbands supporting their wives and giving up of themselves for their wives. i'd love to see wives doing the same for their husbands. I'd love to see kids growing up with both of their biological parents. I'd love to see that family unit and 'ideal marriage' championed and fought for. I'd don't want to see that 'ideal' deteriorating further where people view kids as accessories to their personalities or worse. You're asking me though to change what I picture as an 'ideal marriage'. If the picture of what an 'ideal marriage' is malleable, changeable and variable then it becomes a meaningless institution- which many people already view it as. Heck, if SSM gets up I'd tend to agree with them. This is how SSM impacts on my marriage to Mrs Keg? It turns marriage into a variable, malleable, whatever you want it to be institution. How sad for all of us.

"Equality" isn't about anything goes - it's about giving someone access to the same rights and privileges as others have. Opposite-sex marriage is between two people, not three or more, nor does it involve animals. That's all those who seek SSM are asking for. The polygamy gambit is a joke.


How so? Is polygamy not the same principle? Why should you be free to marry someone of the same sex but someone else not be permitted to marry two, three or more people? What gives you the right to tell them who or how many people they can marry? Does all this sound familiar?

The SSM advocates do their best to avoid the polygamy angle and claim SSM is not a 'slippery slope'. On the final point I agree, it's not a slippery slope. It's actually the exact same principle. Only the wilfully blind or the deliberately misleading don't acknowledge that point. They avoid the principle and try and shout it down because they know that once people comprehend it, SSM is dead in the water.

Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss this without some of the heat that High and Flighty brought to the discussion.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 05:09
Ummm, tell that to all the kids resulting from donor sperm or eggs, and all the adopted and fostered kids. Where did they come from?

Adopted or fostered kids would be the 'making the best of a crap deal'.

Donor sperm and donor eggs is a more interesting one. A more nuanced discussion. I'm done for the day. Maybe another time I'll revisit that one. :ok:

reivilo
24th Feb 2017, 07:17
Dear Keg, children that are raised by lesbian or gay parents are not disadvantaged by this. A great amount of (70+) scientific studies conducted on this subject have shown this.

The science is clear: children raised by same sex parents are at no disadvantage/ (https://qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/)

I very much respect that you raise your kids in the biblical conservative way.
But I still don't really understand why you want to impose your way of marriage, living and parenting on others, while others don't impose their ways on you?

MickG0105
24th Feb 2017, 07:45
How is it that threads on legitimately aviation-related matters such as MH370 get locked down quicker than you can blink but this ..., well, whatever this "discussion" has devolved into continues unabated?

le Pingouin
24th Feb 2017, 09:36
Keg, the only reason your opposite-sex marriage ideal exists is because it's traditional. What about societies where kids are raised collectively? What about families where there are a dozen or more kids as there were in the past. You can't tell any of those kids received much in the way of individual love and attention from their parents.

On what basis are you claiming same-sex parents are any worse than having opposite-sex parents at bringing up kids in a loving and supportive environment?

Wonderworld
24th Feb 2017, 09:59
Well if all you straight people stopped producing gay babies we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 09:59
It's funny how Christians are often accused of trying to 'deny' gay people the 'right' to marry (when really no such right exists and it's something for society to decide in the scheme of things). At least the adults in the discussion have the opportunity to argue their case.

On the other hand, creating a structure where a child (who has no opportunity to argue their own case) is explicitly and by design denied the opportunity to be raised by it's biological parents is no problem for the SSM advocates. It doesn't matter that we can point to any number of adopted people who wonder who their birth parents were even if these people still do well in life and tick the various boxes of 'no different than if they weren't adopted'. The fact that part of their story remains unknown is often a source of constant wonder and often sadness. Now adoption is an example where we make the best of a bad deal and often times that can be an awesome outcome anyway even if it's not the way we'd prefer it to be.

So the question is do you think a child has the right to be raised by it's mother and father? Or do you instead suggest that the child has no rights in this situation and it's rights are whatever happens to be defined by the whims of those who 'want a child'?

Please don't go down the road of 'some heterosexual parents are crap' because we can also point to some same sex parents being crap too- including a high profile QLD case. When parents are crap society makes the best of a bad deal and we ensure the kids are safe. That's not the point I'm talking about here and everyone knows it so I'm hoping we can head that off at the pass.

le Pingouin
24th Feb 2017, 10:12
Who is saying the both natural parents won't be known to the child and be involved in raising them?

Children clearly don't have a right to being raised by both parents - we have divorce and parents moving overseas.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 10:17
Le Pingouin, are you advocating for those sorts of societal structures to be formally enshrined in law in Australia?



But I still don't really understand why you want to impose your way of marriage, living and parenting on others, while others don't impose their ways on you?


reivilo, I've covered this off a few times now. You may not agree. You may not 'understand' my reasoning but I have articulated them. Whilst they're informed by my Christianity, i'm not arguing against SSM because 'that's what the bible says'. I don't expect my religious beliefs to be the reason two gay people can't marry. I'm arguing that traditional marriage is the best thing for society, families and children.

le Pingouin
24th Feb 2017, 10:54
No, I think that would be classified as "bad law" because it wouldn't be enforceable in any meaningful manner, and you'd need to impose the same conditions on opposite-sex couples which I can see being very popular.

I think it's far more important that kids have a stable and loving environment to grow up in than having to have both biological parents present. My Dad lost his father at a very young age and was brought up by his mother and assorted extended family members - as you saying making the best of the situation.

My point being that rather than trying to hold to an ideal that most marriages fall short of as being the only acceptable way and providing no guidance for when it fails it's better to support something more realistic that still works very well.

reivilo
24th Feb 2017, 11:03
I'm arguing that traditional marriage is the best thing for society, families and children.

And that's just your opinion, Keg, based on what your beliefs are.
Scientific research on this matter does not support in any way that 'traditional marriage' is better than same sex marriage. I find it very sad that gay and lesbian couples are denied their marriage in Australia because it's not according to biblical tradition. We have seen so many 'great' traditions in the past that have gone, because of evolution in our way of thinking.
As we live in the 21st century I think we should make our political decisions based on science and not on how something was written down 1500-2000 years ago.

psycho joe
24th Feb 2017, 22:09
Reivilo

In a world of literally billions of families, you wish to change society on the basis of 70 flawed studies that admitted to convenience sampling and excluding outlier findings that didn't meet their desired outcomes.

On the strength of this 'science' you could equally prove that children are not disadvantaged by being raised by a pack of wolves, due to their ability to work in a group environment and their desire to live on a low carbon diet of raw meat.

Lookleft
24th Feb 2017, 22:48
As we live in the 21st century I think we should make our political decisions based on science and not on how something was written down 1500-2000 years ago.

The Religion of Science, where any questioning of "the science" and you are branded a heretic. Have a look at this bloke and see how science and Christianity are not incompatible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 22:49
Wow.

Who is saying the both natural parents won't be known to the child and be involved in raising them?

Both parents, iving in the home, every day? You're really stretching things if you reckon that what you're proposing is a substitute for a married relationships between mum and dad.


Children clearly don't have a right to being raised by both parents - we have divorce and parents moving overseas.

Thanks for making the point nicely. Children have no rights to their Mum and Dad. Their rights to know and be loved by their biological parents are subordinate to the various whims of adults.

We've already discussed how divorce and separation is a step away from the ideal structure of raising kids (as most research will show) but in some situations is the best of a bad situation. You've confirmed quite nicely here that you are quite happy to extend the concept of 'making the best of a bad situation' to simply endorse the 'bad situation' as the new baseline standard.

And you wonder why I'm anti SSM? This is a major part of it right here.

Keg
24th Feb 2017, 23:00
....not on how something was written down 1500-2000 years ago.

Your knowledge of the bible really is quite deficient if you're quoting '1500' as part of that sentence!

Of course, having not read it, how can you claim whether what's inside it is relevant today or not? Perhaps you should have a read! :D

Fool Sufferer
24th Feb 2017, 23:14
Bronze and iron age mythology. Nothing more, nothing less.

However Keg, I personally agree with your views on SSM, from a very different perspective.

Tankengine
24th Feb 2017, 23:19
Old testament is older, obviously, but more of a collection of legends. New testament was written well after the fact by people with political agendas. With some of the oldest Dead Sea scrolls not approved by the Catholic church (as they indicate Jesus would be really pissed off with them ) you cannot treat the Bible as fact.

Anyway, nothing to do with a few stckers on a jet.

Fool Sufferer
24th Feb 2017, 23:37
"Anyway, nothing to do with a few stckers (sic) on a jet."

True, however an interesting discussion nonetheless, although perhaps better relegated to jet blast.

Obviously attracting a large degree of interest however.

le Pingouin
25th Feb 2017, 03:15
"Both parents, iving in the home, every day?" - so you'd ban FIFO workers, long haul pilots and many shiftworkers from having kids? Again, you're holding SSM to a higher standard than opposite-sex marriage. And don't pull the "best of a bad situation" line - many such people get married with those factors as a pre-existing condition.

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

No, I'm saying real marriage isn't an ideal and it's hypocritical to hold one group to it and not another. You either ban opposite-sex marriage between men and women who enter into marriage clearly being unable to meet the ideal or your ideal is sterile fantasy.

Please produce some real evidence that an opposite-sex marriage is superior for raising kids - measurable outcomes.

No, you're anti-SSM because you hold to a fantasy ideal.

Derfred
25th Feb 2017, 03:41
Keg, and others,

Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?

SSM does not change the rights and/or abilities of same-sex couples to have or adopt children.

Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.

framer
25th Feb 2017, 05:45
Why are you using children as the main part of your argument?



Children, and therefore "families" are completely irrelevant to the SSM debate.
I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Not only for a debate on SSM, but for almost everything else we do from driving too fast as male adolescents to putting on lipstick before going out the door. Children are the reason for it all.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.
I envy Keg his faith and anyone else with similar. I have tried to produce it in myself at intervals throughout my life but have never quite succeeded. One thing that always causes me trouble is the proposition that "our religion is right and therefore everyone else is wrong". The science of things also stands as a rather large obstacle to me. I can see clearly how the animal world works regarding 'the selfish gene' and can't see any good reason why human kind doesn't slot nicely into that system alongside all the other animals. We appear no different when viewed from a distance. Throughout history it appears to me that judgement of others causes problems and any step that involves one party ( normally religious) looking down on another saying tut tutt causes more heartache.There have always been gay people, why not bring them into the tent rather than keep looking out at them tut tutting. Surely more care and nurture ( for our children) will evolve out of an inclusive approach than one of separatism.
Just my thoughts.
Total respect for anyone who can lead a life without hurting others regardless of faith, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Framer

Asteroid 2578
25th Feb 2017, 09:39
Framer, I completely agree with you.

Your comments brought to my mind the lyrics of the 2012 'Same Love' song by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (feat. Mary Lambert):


It's worth a watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0).

These are the lyrics

"When I was in the third grade I thought that I was gay,
'Cause I could draw, my uncle was, and I kept my room straight.
I told my mom, tears rushing down my face
She's like "Ben you've loved girls since before pre-k, trippin'."
Yeah, I guess she had a point, didn't she?
Bunch of stereotypes all in my head.
I remember doing the math like, "Yeah, I'm good at little league."
A preconceived idea of what it all meant
For those that liked the same sex
Had the characteristics
The right wing conservatives think it's a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made rewiring of a predisposition
Playing God, aw nah here we go
America the brave still fears what we don't know
And "God loves all his children" is somehow forgotten
But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five-hundred years ago
I don't know

And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to

If I was gay, I would think hip-hop hates me
Have you read the YouTube comments lately?
"Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily
We become so numb to what we're saying
A culture founded from oppression
Yet we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggots behind the keys of a message board
A word rooted in hate, yet our genre still ignores it
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!
Live on and be yourself
When I was at church they taught me something else
If you preach hate at the service those words aren't anointed
That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned
When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless
Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen
I might not be the same, but that's not important
No freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it

(I don't know)

And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to

We press play, don't press pause
Progress, march on
With the veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
'Til the day that my uncles can be united by law
When kids are walking 'round the hallway plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful some would rather die than be who they are
And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all
But it's a damn good place to start
No law is gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever God you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love
About time that we raised up... sex

And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to."

AerialPerspective
25th Feb 2017, 17:20
Why should it be closed? Because its not PC? I thought we still lived in a democracy.Its not about Gays, so why not have a Aircraft painted for Anzac Day? Australia Day? Labor Day? Palm Sunday? Easter? Christmas? Oddly enough, some find it offensive for three quarter naked people, strutting their stuff in a public place. Then painting an aircraft that carries The Australian Flag, to promote it. Those people also have a right, to express their opinion.
You think we live in a democracy??? You mean the Commonwealth of Australia, the only Western liberal nation to not have a Constitutional Bill of Rights... and by the way, it's not a democracy, a democracy is closer to what Switzerland have but even Switzerland is not, because democracy means all the decisions are made by actual citizens at town meetings, etc. We elect people to make the decisions, that is actually republican or as it's euphemistically called 'representative' democracy. I suggest you have a careful read of the Constitution and the Anti-Terrorism Laws before you think you have any rights at all. This government in particular has taken executive overreach to a previously unheard of extent while dismissing any talk of a Bill of Rights (which would restrict their ability to pass draconian legislation). So-called Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Movement and other freedoms like Jury Trial, Double Jeopardy and equality under the law are just one Act of Parliament away from not existing. The ONLY thing that protects us and then only in a limited way is the separation of powers and a strong High Court. As for this forum, it is a private forum with rules. Like a workplace, your freedom of speech does not extend to such places based on common law rights of owners of premises and so-called carriage services.

jonkster
25th Feb 2017, 23:19
Arguments will not convince anyone to change their deeply held views on these issues. Certainly not ones on public web forums. It just descends into disparagement on both sides.

Views do change though. I changed my views. I was pretty conservative once about issues typically described under the LGBTIQ alphabet banner.

When I people I knew, liked and respected came out and I realised they were still the same people I liked and respected. That made me sit up.

And when a student I had once re-appeared after many years as the opposite sex I found it deeply uncomfortable until she explained it was either that or suicide. That took me back. It was not my journey but, we only get one life. Who was I to condemn someone to misery in it? This person was now happy (not as in laughing and joyous but as finally comfortable in their own skin).

I know same sex couples who are just as loving and decent parents as you will find anywhere and whose kids have grown up exactly the same as my kids and are just as well adjusted.

Basically when I saw that people whose sexuality and preferences in that area were not like mine and yet were otherwise just plain people I decided - who gives a toss?

Arguments did not change my views. People I got to know, their stories and their lives changed my views.

The way I see it now is if 2 people are lucky enough to find love and care and meaning with each other, and it is not in a way that I would be able to find it, who am I to say you cannot have that because I wouldn't.

There are some I know whose 'non conventional' relationship could teach many of my more conventional friends lessons in how relationships can work better.

If you don't want to fly an aeroplane because of the paint job, let me know. I will happily take over. :p

Derfred
25th Feb 2017, 23:22
I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Not only for a debate on SSM, but for almost everything else we do from driving too fast as male adolescents to putting on lipstick before going out the door. Children are the reason for it all.
The drive to ensure your genetic material lives on after your cache of it dies is as strong in humans as it is in rats and mosquitoes.

No, the fact that there are gay people proves that not to be entirely true.

The fact that there are heterosexual people who choose not to have children also proves that not to be entirely true.

Some gay people, however, do have or raise children. The decision to legalise SSM will not have any affect on that. If you want gay people not to have or raise children, then that's a separate argument.

unobtanium
26th Feb 2017, 02:33
The latest official alphabet soup to use is LGBTIQA

We are in the aviation industry, get your acronyms right.

Trojan1981
26th Feb 2017, 03:03
We have bigger problems in this country than this crap.

Not many give two f- about which acronyms are in fashion this week, 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.

Also, Qantas sucks, regardless of what color they paint their machines. I haven't booked them since the "bomb-maker's son" took over, although occasionally get stuck with them by code-share. Glad to spend my money elsewhere.