Gay colors?
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
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’
Are you suggesting that Jefferson and Lincoln were really LGBTQI advocates?
Or, are you trying to suggest that LGBQTI people in Australia are being treated like African slaves, having been kidnapped sold and then worked in the field and beaten?
Are you suggesting that allowing less than half of one percent of the population dictate the social norms of the majority is somehow akin to freeing the slaves?
"Let the bastardisation of history continue"
...joe
Last edited by psycho joe; 21st Mar 2017 at 21:30.
As far as dictating social norms - it is none of my business who people choose to love and commit to - I have no desire to dictate whether you can or cannot choose to commit to.
There are ratbags and blow hards on *both* sides of the issue who want to turn this into something way more dramatic than it is and that is not helpful or fair, it turns the 'debate' into a slanging match where people get wrongly lumped into extreme stereotypes.
I think most people are not in either stereotype and so step back from the diatribes that tend to float around the issue from both the extreme ends of opinion.
My view is if you can find someone to love and be loved by who am I to say you can't do that? Why should I say if you happen to find someone of the same sex you cannot get the same legal rights as if they were of the opposite? Go for it as far as I am concerned. What happens in other people's bedrooms is none of my business.
For me it comes down to live and let live. Treat people fairly and if it what people do in their private lives doesn't hurt anyone then it is none of my business.
If we modify the law to recognise gay marriages I believe it will have exactly zero impact on me personally but would have a big positive impact for some others. Why should I be a dog in the manger?
If that makes me an LGBTI extremist or anarchist or someone trying to undermine society or with some secret agenda to force people into being gay or subverting children or promoting immorality or whatever then I think that is just plain silly.
If you have a heartfelt belief that gay people shouldn't be married, fair enough - that is how you see the world - it just doesn't make much sense to me.
I cannot see how anyone's opinion will change by the stuff written in this thread, it just gives people a chance to vent, sometimes with great vitriol
There are ratbags and blow hards on *both* sides of the issue who want to turn this into something way more dramatic than it is and that is not helpful or fair, it turns the 'debate' into a slanging match where people get wrongly lumped into extreme stereotypes.
I think most people are not in either stereotype and so step back from the diatribes that tend to float around the issue from both the extreme ends of opinion.
My view is if you can find someone to love and be loved by who am I to say you can't do that? Why should I say if you happen to find someone of the same sex you cannot get the same legal rights as if they were of the opposite? Go for it as far as I am concerned. What happens in other people's bedrooms is none of my business.
For me it comes down to live and let live. Treat people fairly and if it what people do in their private lives doesn't hurt anyone then it is none of my business.
If we modify the law to recognise gay marriages I believe it will have exactly zero impact on me personally but would have a big positive impact for some others. Why should I be a dog in the manger?
If that makes me an LGBTI extremist or anarchist or someone trying to undermine society or with some secret agenda to force people into being gay or subverting children or promoting immorality or whatever then I think that is just plain silly.
If you have a heartfelt belief that gay people shouldn't be married, fair enough - that is how you see the world - it just doesn't make much sense to me.
I cannot see how anyone's opinion will change by the stuff written in this thread, it just gives people a chance to vent, sometimes with great vitriol
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.
The last comment I'll make is I commented on this issue about 3-4 weeks ago and I can't believe it's still going on on this thread. Those against it might want to buy a soapbox and set up in the nearest park. That way we can all walk past and ignore them.
Nunc est bibendum
The time of day this is posted will make it clear why I'm not posting a longer response. Perhaps more later today. A few excerpts from the dissenting opinions in the US Supreme Court.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
“A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,”
“If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.....
Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims
Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims
This is a long way from kangaroos carrying rainbow flags but I will go with it. My understanding is that the U.S. Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear arms. In Australia the then Prime Minister restricted the availability of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. According to A2578, using the logic that if the US allows something then we should too, then what Howard did was a restriction of gun owners civil rights.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: sydney
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
EVA have Hello Kitty planes. No howls of outrage from the engineers there
It is more than marketing, some management are being coerced by a media and social networking campaign. And Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, is a social activist on this issue.
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.
As an openly gay CEO, I find it completely unsurprising for him to bring the experiences of the difficulties encountered by him to his view of how to run the business. Note that the policy does not limit itself to supporting gay people, it also supports women and indigenous people.
I don't see why it is inappropriate for businesses to pursue social policies if those are the values that the board and CEO develop and are supported by the shareholders. If, as employees, you are so opposed to the values and policies of the organisation, you can petition the shareholders and board for change and/or you should choose another employer who's values you can live with.
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
I don't see why it is inappropriate for businesses to pursue social policies if those are the values that the board and CEO develop and are supported by the shareholders.
Nunc est bibendum
The hypocrisy is this. Alan Joyce mentioned a number of other causes that Qantas has championed and sure, we've had a R on a Dash 8 for the recognise campaign, a mo on a 737 for Movember and a blue ribbon for prostrate cancer (after the CEO had prostrate cancer). He also mentioned the homelessness campaign amongst others.
So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?
Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.
It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.
At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.
I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.
So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?
Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.
It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.
At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.
I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.
The problem is that it doesn't meet community standards and expectations. QANTAS is a business and not an aviation arm of get-up. The CEO's vote is worth 1, exactly the same as everyone else. If he wants to be the champion of social engineering he should resign and try his hand at being elected as a politician on that platform.
Regarding your statement that the CEO has 1 vote, I don't quite follow your meaning. If you are referring to political elections, you are correct. However, when it comes to setting policy within Qantas, his 'vote' counts for a hell of a lot. As I stated above, it is the duty of the CEO and Board to set policy.
I don't agree with your statement about 'social engineering'. Companies, individuals, unions, non-profit organisations and a plethora of other interested parties petition and lobby politicians, place advertisements on media and use other methods to influence opinion. I think it is ironic that someone trying to influence opinion on a web site is criticising someone else for doing the same thing (although Joyce is being more effective and also on the 'right side' of the argument in this case).
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
Im arguing for democracy. If you'll recall the federal government was democratically voted into government. They should be allowed to govern. They went to the election with the plebiscite and they have a mandate. Alan Joyce, didn't win an election, he has no mandate. His views represent his own and in a plebiscite his vote equals one.
That's democracy.
On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.
It begs the question. If this was someone like Gina Rinehart trying to force the governments hand in changing the law to suit herself would you be as complicit?
That's democracy.
On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.
It begs the question. If this was someone like Gina Rinehart trying to force the governments hand in changing the law to suit herself would you be as complicit?
The hypocrisy is this. Alan Joyce mentioned a number of other causes that Qantas has championed and sure, we've had a R on a Dash 8 for the recognise campaign, a mo on a 737 for Movember and a blue ribbon for prostrate cancer (after the CEO had prostrate cancer). He also mentioned the homelessness campaign amongst others.
So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?
Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.
It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.
At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.
I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.
So which of those issues came with massive social media campaigns? Which of those issues also came with decorations in the campus? Which of those came with videos on repeat play at baggage carousels and other front of house areas as well as in crew rooms and other back areas. Did the homelessness campaign feature some cardboard boxes in the foyer of the Mascot campus with one of our managers sleeping in it a few nights a week? Did any of those issues involve painting ground support equipment in the colours of the cause?
Further, at least prostrate, breast cancer and Movember are social health issues as opposed to SSM which is at best a socio-political issue if not simply a political issue.
It was chilling to read Michael Barnett's comments that he intends to 'target' people in high profile leasdership positions when their 'stance' (presumably being Christian is enough) is at odds with the company edict. That means he's 'targeting' people like Lookleft and I and anyone else who doesn't agree with SSM. He wants us removed from positions of leadership within the airline because we don't support the SSM cause.
At least the totalitarian aims of the SSM lobby are now becoming more clear. That's a handy thing to at least understand. It was also interesting to read of Lanor's intention to include sexual preference under 18c and thus under their proposal making it illegal to voice opinions such as many have proffered here in support of traditional marriage.
I haven't forgotten the other person who asked my thoughts re the legal status of same sex couples under current de facto legislation.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to with regard to the 'Michael Barnett' comments. What I will say is that it is entirely appropriate for a company to have a policy on social issues such as diversity. It is also entirely appropriate to have people in leadership positions in a company hold the same values as those of the company. The Army had similar issues with attitudes towards diversity. Lieutenant General David Morrison stated to those in the Army who did not agree with the Army values - if you don't agree, you have no place here.
Regarding section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, how would discussing SSM be illegal if sexual preference was included? You misunderstand the legislation. Such action would only become unlawful if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.
Finally, there is a big difference between 'prostrate' and 'prostate'.
Im arguing for democracy. If you'll recall the federal government was democratically voted into government. They should be allowed to govern. They went to the election with the plebiscite and they have a mandate. Alan Joyce, didn't win an election, he has no mandate. His views represent his own and in a plebiscite his vote equals one.
That's democracy.
On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.
That's democracy.
On the other hand. If the government bowed to every demand of Alan Joyce, the tax payer would be lighter to the tune of some 3 billion dollars.
Moreover, even if there is a plebiscite, Members of Parliament and Senators will not be bound by the result. So, if an MP states that they were elected on their anti-gay marriage stance and their electorate is against the proposal, yet the plebiscite shows a majority in favour of SSM, how should they vote? Democracy is an easy term to throw around, but it is not a simple concept. Is a democracy a system that listens to the majority in all circumstances, or is a democracy a system that respects the rights of all, including minorities?
Regardless, lobbying and publicly presenting a political opinion is central to democracy and protected by our Constitution.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 23rd Mar 2017 at 11:05.
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
I agree, ultimately, the issue of marriage equality is for the Parliament. Although it is for the Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage,
We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.
What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.
Nunc est bibendum
The level of support of those causes differs markedly headmaster. Only one issue has been pushed so hard as to rate an almost daily mention in company emails. Only one issue has had their 'flagship' parade declaration in the Mascot HQ foyer. Only one issue has had such social media exposure. Only one issue has had aeroplanes and GSE equipment coloured in its colours. Only one issue has had multiple videos playing in different areas. Ther is no consistency to Joyce's comments that Qantas is speaking out on SSM in the manner it's spoken out on other issues. Qantas has not spoken out in the same manner. They've spoken out on SSM and rainbow politics far exceeding that they've commented on any other issue- social or otherwise- in the last decade.
You haven't read the last 17 pages have you?
We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.
What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.
We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.
What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.
Your assertion that only a small percentage want to change to SSM is not correct. Granted, the percentage people directly affected by a decision to change the Act is small, however, support for change is either in the majority, or close to it, depending on the polling you look at. As I stated above, one of the tests of a democratic society is not just how it looks after the wishes of the majority, but also how it respects the needs of the minority. I think many people in the Western world 'get' this, and have changed their laws to allow SSM. As I stated above, the ability for people to lobby and express their political views is established as a right under the Constitution. I don't understand your comment about 'threatening' businesses. If the threat is simply to boycott businesses that do not support SSM, or boycott businesses that unlawfully discriminate, I have no problem with that. If the threat is to commit an unlawful act, then that is something that I would not think was appropriate, and ultimately, unhelpful for those seeking change.
I don't agree with your assertion about Howard not changing the definition of marriage, but that is a minor semantic point in the scheme of things. You are correct in that if politicians don't respect the will of the people they are answerable at the election.
While the concept of marriage may have evolved from Judaeo Christian values, Australia is a secular state. As mentioned previously above, s116 of the Constitution points to this secularism.
Regarding MPs and Senators swearing an oath on the Bible, if you read the Constitution you will find s42 states members can take an oath or an affirmation.
Regarding the introduction to the Constitution and prayers to start parliament, this was the result of political lobbying by the churches to the constitutional conventions held in the 1880s - the kind of process you are arguing that Joyce should not be doing now. The issue of the relevance and legality of these prayers in Parliamentary Standing Orders is still an issue that attracts debate. However, given the history of why they are included does not really make much difference to the ability of Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage under s51(xxii), or the prohibition to make laws with respect to religion under s116.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 23rd Mar 2017 at 07:53.
The level of support of those causes differs markedly headmaster. Only one issue has been pushed so hard as to rate an almost daily mention in company emails. Only one issue has had their 'flagship' parade declaration in the Mascot HQ foyer. Only one issue has had such social media exposure. Only one issue has had aeroplanes and GSE equipment coloured in its colours. Only one issue has had multiple videos playing in different areas. Ther is no consistency to Joyce's comments that Qantas is speaking out on SSM in the manner it's spoken out on other issues. Qantas has not spoken out in the same manner. They've spoken out on SSM and rainbow politics far exceeding that they've commented on any other issue- social or otherwise- in the last decade.
Nunc est bibendum
What issues do employees in Qantas face if they are gay? Are they disadvantaged in some way? Are they over looked for promotion? Do they not get a fair go?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
There is nil organisational prejudice in the Qantas workforce. In pilot ranks we have gay Captains, F/Os and S/Os. We have gay pilots in Training roles. We've had gay pilots facilitating CRM. We have gay pilots in management and office roles. They are probably over represented in those roles given their numbers in the wider pilot community. Female pilots are probably over represented in management positions also given their ratio in the wider pilot community.
If you want to look at other roles within Qantas you could argue that females and gays are over represented as a ratio of the wider community as well- HR, F/As are two off the top of my head.
So what prejudice is there to overcome for Qantas?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when the share price crashes and dividends are no longer paid ,who will tolerate these indulgent causes by a CEO that has destroyed the heritage of what was a great Australian Engineering organisation. The envy of the Aviation world , the leaders in Engine maintenance. Dumped , by a little' man" with no respect for his workers. I hope he understands just what a weak , limp CEO he is