Gay colors?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad that the closure of engine maintennance in Australia , and the loss of hundreds jobs , skills and the effect on true families , does not seem to register with Alan Joyce and his "mates"'
As much as you might want to cling to traditional values, society has moved on.
I personally don't understand why they don't. There's always someone on TV telling me how the majority wants SSM, so just get on with it in the most democratic manner possible.
you can't have a referendum on something that isn't in or is going to put in the constitution
the plebiscite was a white elephant with members lining up to say they wouldn't be bound by it before it even got off the ground (Abetz, Christiansen come to mind)
the rules were changed by howard on the floor and if they are going to be changed again it should be done on the floor
the plebiscite was a white elephant with members lining up to say they wouldn't be bound by it before it even got off the ground (Abetz, Christiansen come to mind)
the rules were changed by howard on the floor and if they are going to be changed again it should be done on the floor
Well said Asteroid. Finally a few facts inserted into the discussion.
Keg, your posts are always considered and thoughful. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the above, considering your previous post.
Keg, your posts are always considered and thoughful. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the above, considering your previous post.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Ida Down: Out of curiosity, why does it bother you so much?
Would you show the same outrage to Black Entertainment Television?
Aviation should be the one domain where none of this matters, but where, we come together to achieve a common goal, and to share a passion between us.
To clarify, are you getting your knickers in a twist over the dominance of 'Gay Rights' when compared with other 'Rights', and that you'd prefer to keep politics out of the workplace, or do you genuinely have concern with the way we are progressing as a society and believe that homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual individuals should be side-lined and ridiculed, or made a point of contention for the benefit of others?
Would you show the same outrage to Black Entertainment Television?
Aviation should be the one domain where none of this matters, but where, we come together to achieve a common goal, and to share a passion between us.
To clarify, are you getting your knickers in a twist over the dominance of 'Gay Rights' when compared with other 'Rights', and that you'd prefer to keep politics out of the workplace, or do you genuinely have concern with the way we are progressing as a society and believe that homosexual, transgender, bi-sexual individuals should be side-lined and ridiculed, or made a point of contention for the benefit of others?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ida down, my arguments in favour of SSM don't make me gay any more than your username makes you a doona-biter. Please don't make it personal.
I am not comfortable watching 2 men making out, and I certainly don't like thinking about what they might get up to in bed. But that's my hang-up. (2 lesbians on the other hand... hmmm, but I digress...)
But I believe they deserve the same rights as you and I, and I'm happy to stand up for that, even if it means flying a gay aeroplane now and then...
I am not comfortable watching 2 men making out, and I certainly don't like thinking about what they might get up to in bed. But that's my hang-up. (2 lesbians on the other hand... hmmm, but I digress...)
But I believe they deserve the same rights as you and I, and I'm happy to stand up for that, even if it means flying a gay aeroplane now and then...
So just hold a referendum. Easy democratic solution. Society has moved on apparently, so it will be a cut and dry matter.
I personally don't understand why they don't. There's always someone on TV telling me how the majority wants SSM, so just get on with it in the most democratic manner possible.
I personally don't understand why they don't. There's always someone on TV telling me how the majority wants SSM, so just get on with it in the most democratic manner possible.
Previously in Australia we had laws restricting interracial marriage between indigenous/non-indigenous couples. Those were legislated out of existence by parliaments. Those parliaments, in effect, redefined the meaning of marriage at the time. And a parliament can do the same today.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBM, I agree, but some seem to believe SSM will destroy their "Pleasantville" society.
The thread is about the appropriateness (or not) of an SSM theme being painted on an airliner. It has diverged here and there but...
I've done my best to keep it on topic...
The thread is about the appropriateness (or not) of an SSM theme being painted on an airliner. It has diverged here and there but...
I've done my best to keep it on topic...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, my question was to Ken, not you, but since you've re-entered the debate:
Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.
It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.
You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.
So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.
Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:
---
I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.
The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.
You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.
I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.
So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.
Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.
I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.
So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.
---
But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.
The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.
With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.
Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.
So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?
In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?
If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?
Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?
---
Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.
Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.
It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.
You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.
So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.
Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:
---
I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.
The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.
You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.
I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.
So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.
Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.
I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.
So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.
---
But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.
The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.
With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.
Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.
So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?
In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?
If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?
Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?
---
Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.
Last edited by Derfred; 20th Mar 2017 at 19:53.
I'm not sure why people assume that it is just the Christians who are against SSM. I don't think that people of Jewish,Islam,Hindu, Buddhists are openly supporting it either. If the people in support of SSM are the enlightened members of the community where do they draw the line? Why not amend the Marriage Act to allow for polygamous marriages? If its all about the love why does the LGTBIQ (will someone please explain the difference between the G and the Q) lobby group want it restricted to 2 people. Isn't that concept out of date? If its just about equality and saying that all love is equal why is it restricted to people. There are plenty of people who consider their pets as children and that animals are equal to people so why not extend that equality. Surely in 50 to 100 years time there won't be the moral objection there is now. At least the partner won't have to rely on their well being dependent on a will. Its an extreme example I know but what is the line? Who gets to define where that line is?
Christians have always stood up for what was central to our faith. The Christian faith does not change yet societies values are always changing. The Bible did not prevent woman getting the vote, it does not give anyone the right to denigrate anyone else in society, it does not require you to go to church if you don't believe God exists. Christians will not just accept that SSM is a natural progression when Jesus said
"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
The Gay Lobby and its supporters won't agree but Christians like me and Keg don't accept that SSM is a positive step and will continue to disagree. If the majority of Australians don't have a problem with it then lets have a show of hands through the plebiscite. In the meantime ASX listed corporations should not be using their businesses and employees to run a political agenda.
Christians have always stood up for what was central to our faith. The Christian faith does not change yet societies values are always changing. The Bible did not prevent woman getting the vote, it does not give anyone the right to denigrate anyone else in society, it does not require you to go to church if you don't believe God exists. Christians will not just accept that SSM is a natural progression when Jesus said
"4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
The Gay Lobby and its supporters won't agree but Christians like me and Keg don't accept that SSM is a positive step and will continue to disagree. If the majority of Australians don't have a problem with it then lets have a show of hands through the plebiscite. In the meantime ASX listed corporations should not be using their businesses and employees to run a political agenda.
Errrr, you may want to read about some of the religious arguments made against women's suffrage:
NebraskaStudies.Org
Would Jesus Discriminate? - History Lessons
NebraskaStudies.Org
Would Jesus Discriminate? - History Lessons
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons
Copernican heliocentrism as touted by Galileo was inaccurate, as were many of his supporting theories around tidal movements etc. It assumed that planetary bodies traveled in a circular rather than elliptical orbit and that tides were caused by the sloshing of the seas as the earth sped up and slowed down in orbit. When the science was questioned over the fact that there was no noticeable stellar parallax that could be determined with equipment at the time (hotly discussed even in the 21st century), Galileo turned to personal attacks on individuals which landed him in hot water with the Catholic Church.
The idea that the church at the time was ignorant of science or thought that the world was flat is simply not true.
Any link between Galileo and a minority group making demands over a democratic majority to force cultural change is tenuous at best.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this is not of such importance that 16 pages of PPRuNe has been used up. Our country is going down the gurgler and this SSM and other gay community bitching dominates the debate. I recall being told thirty years ago, by a QF cabin attendant that: "Don't worry about the male attendants being homosexual, most of the girls are too!" It is nothing new. I don't really care what others do, just don't try and convert me.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bread and Circuses...
It is rare that I would ever agree with Peter Dutton, a dullard in the truest sense of the word, however whilst the little fella may have a particular desire to lead a debate, he can lever his personal wealth and lead it.
To use the corporation and thinly veil his personal views as representative of the company and the 27,000 employees is not appropriate. For those working at Qantas, their opinion matters little, they do not have a voice, yet he purports to speak in their name.
"It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around."
(From ABC today) Mr Joyce also wrote that it was an economic issue, saying, "more open societies attract better talent".
Given Mr. Joyce failed to provide any factual data to support the assertion, perhaps he can use his personal wealth to ascertain what exactly tangible economic benefit can be captured before committing shareholder funds and time in the company name for a project he personally sees merit in.
It is rare that I would ever agree with Peter Dutton, a dullard in the truest sense of the word, however whilst the little fella may have a particular desire to lead a debate, he can lever his personal wealth and lead it.
To use the corporation and thinly veil his personal views as representative of the company and the 27,000 employees is not appropriate. For those working at Qantas, their opinion matters little, they do not have a voice, yet he purports to speak in their name.
"It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around."
(From ABC today) Mr Joyce also wrote that it was an economic issue, saying, "more open societies attract better talent".
Given Mr. Joyce failed to provide any factual data to support the assertion, perhaps he can use his personal wealth to ascertain what exactly tangible economic benefit can be captured before committing shareholder funds and time in the company name for a project he personally sees merit in.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all the time the real issues are ignored , This is not the Australia I grew up in . No regard for workers , just identity politics. Go away and stop hindering the progress of this great country. Bring back real leaders who don't mouth the PC bull
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pity AJ does not consider the devastating effect his decision to close engine and component maintenance on real familes . Stop the PC personal agenda AL baby, think about what you have done before you start to lecture the people you put out of work. Or should we have all married each other then you might have kept our jobs. No just honest working MEN. What a limp lettuce leaf you are James Strong would be turning over in his grave. Geoff must be laughing his head off. And Capt Bert Ritchie what would he think
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a vigorous and robust democracy, such as exists in Australia everyone will have an opportunity to voice their opinions and politicians will work together to find a common consensus that the electorate can agree with. It is a proud tradition and what has happened over the previous 116 years.
If I wanted to really gain an insight into, or better still represent the average QANTAS pilot, I wouldn't simply go and read the graffiti on the Sydney sim base toilet wall and assume superior knowledge of the QANTAS constituency. And yet this is exactly what our politicians do. They hang around the dunny door of social media (thanks Bill Leak) in order to gain "likes" from the screeching nutters and fringe dwellers, then pat themselves on the back for their "knowledge and understanding" of the people they represent. Except they don't represent the majority, which is demanded by our democracy.
This is why I want a vote in the plebiscite.