Gay colors?
On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of the institution of marriage. The problem is the lack of respect for long established institutions, of which marriage is one.
As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.
As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.
The point I'm making is every opinion poll I've seen on extending marriage rights for gay couples in Australia in the last five years shows a minimum 65-70% in favour and no more than 25-30% opposed. This isn't just a minor swing it's a huge margin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reco...tralia#Polling
Point two, look at the age breakdown in support of marriage equality in this recent poll:
Large majority of Australians (76%) in favour of allowing gay marriage - Roy Morgan Research
Support for SSM in the 18-24yr bracket is 94%. Support in the 25-34yr bracket is 83%. Demographics are telling us with the passage of time the overall support for SSM is only going to increase.
I also suspect that the reason Labor put the kybosh on the plebiscite is that they have internal polling that suggested it was going to be a close run thing. Their proferred excuse of 'hate speech' against gays is a furphy
.
.
and that way I can ensure it's not just politicians deciding this issue amongst themselves.
If that's the case we might as well hold a plebiscite once a week to approve any suggested legislation and abolish parliament.
The only reason this country should have national plebiscites or referendums is to either change the constitution (as required by the constitution) or for symbolic things like changing the anthem or the flag.
Last edited by dr dre; 24th Mar 2017 at 01:01.
Nunc est bibendum
Then you label my comments 'prejudice'? I'll wear that title if you're happy to also admit that many comments on this thread (and in the media, and by Alan Joyce) are also prejudiced against those who disagree with SSM. The principle cuts both ways.
Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.
Still, part of me is actually quietly pleased with the direction this is taking. It's given plenty of pro traditional marriage proponents the opportunity to put forward our point of view. It's also shown me that there is much more support for the traditional marriage stand point than I previously thought.
Alan Joyce can comment on whatever he likes. I don't give two hoots. However his comments aren't made by Alan Joyce, Northern Beaches. They've been championed as the official position of the company I work for and am a shareholder of. The airline of which I'm an employee of has engaged in a political issue that in my opinion it has no place engaging in. We agree to disagree on whether this is appropriate.
Nunc est bibendum
Like you though I'm pleased thisnthread has been able to run its course. A couple of pages back somone asked me my thoughts about the legal status of same sex relationships.
This is personal opinion. It may not fit a legal definition somewhere so my apologies if I'm not legally precise.
The law exists to protect us. It does this by regulating certain things. When it comes to marriage law one of the important aspects is to protect the weaker member of the relationship. To ensure that in the event of marriage breakdown the weaker of the parties is not left destitute. My view of de facto relationships is the same. The law should exist to protect the parties in the event of relationship breakdown. In this respect the law should be equal for both married couples and de facto couples. It should be the same for hetero de facto relationships as well as same sex de facto relationships.
I think headmaster it was that pointed out that the threshold test for same sex de facto relationships was more difficult to demonstrate. If that's the case it should be changed. There should be no differences in the legal status of these relationships. The weaker member of the relationship needs to be protected. If there is no 'weaker' member then at least the law provides for an 'orderly' dissolution of the relationship.
Of course, a marriage means that we don't need to demonstrate that we've been in a de facto relationship for a period of time. The legal protections are effective from the day of the marriage. In fact, I would not have been protected under law prior to being married as I was not in a de facto relationship. Many people these days actually are legally protected prior to being married as they've been in a de facto relationship- often for a year or more- prior to getting married. I'd be stunned were a same sex couple not already protected under the de facto legislation prior to them getting 'married'.
Should a de facto couple (hetero or same sex) be able to 'register' their relationship? Probably. If that assists with the administration in the event of a relationship breakdown or death of one of the members. I would have thought a good will would have covered the death part though. If it doesn't then there's no reason why that part shouldn't be tidied up. People will no doubt argue the admin steps I've described here are essentially a marriage in all but name only. The distinctions though are things I've articulated previously.
Once upon a time Anglican churches baptised whomever asked for it. These days the church is a bit more discerning about it and actually require a declaration of faith in order to baptise a child or adult. Perhaps if SSM gets up we'll find the church move in the same way for marriage also.
Of course, no doubt some quarters of the gay lobby will be unhappy that 'the church' will refuse to solemnise the relationship and already we've seen that Labor is considering making speaking out against SSM illegal as no doubt that will 'offend' somone also so we will see if this really is about 'equality' or not in the future.
Nunc est bibendum
I've never argued that Joyce can't speak on behalf of Qantas. I've argued that he shouldn't on this issue and others related to it. I'm not sure how that makes me 'wrong'- at least from the legalistic line you're pushing. We agree to disagree. I'm cool with that.
On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of the institution of marriage. The problem is the lack of respect for long established institutions, of which marriage is one.
As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.
As I said, I have no problem with the SS getting all the legal benefits of marriage, but don't call the union a marriage because it never will be a marriage.
Marriage is defined by the Marriage Act, not by personal or any other definition, so when the Act is changed to include other than heterosexual unions it will indeed be marriage.
I could have a personal definition that says anyone married by a religious minister isn't married as it was under duress. "We won't accept your marriage unless you do it with us" isn't free choice.
Absolutely-I look forward to aircraft colour schemes showing the AWM and Opera Australia being made public if there is to be any consistency in the use of QF property for promotion.
You need to do a bit of research to discover that what you perceive as "marriage" hasn't always been the way it currently is.
In the opinion of a lot of Australians, that definition still stands.
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 would like to thank QANTAS management and staff for supporting both the Australian War Memorial and Opera Australia...
Are these causes OK?
Are these causes OK?
Or is the question reductio ad absurdum?
Nunc est bibendum
By all means champion the importance of getting the right person for the job. By all means encourage girls to consider engineeering and piloting (funny how they never champion girls to consider taking on the baggage handler role, or blokes to take on the F/A or HR roles where the females outnumber the males). By all means advertise that you're an inclusive workplace. Don't try and and tell me (and others) that we're not upholding the 'Aussie value of fairness' because we don't endorse, support and/or promote the political issue that is SSM. That's actually none of Qantas business.
In fact, let me put it this way. Lots of people have told me how SSM has 'no effect' on me, my marriage and society. Using that logic SSM therefore has 'no effect' on Qantas business. Therefore they really have no need to comment on the issue.
Nunc est bibendum
What if Qantas came out as 'pro life'? How do you think anyone in Qantas who'd had an abortion may feel? Conflicted? Worried? Concerned that if they said anything promabortion that they'd be targeted and intimidated?
Can you see the correlation here?
Historically from about 1250–1300 CE "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. That was long before the Government clarified the definition in the Marriage Act to reflect society's long standing view of a "marriage."
In the opinion of a lot of Australians, that definition still stands.
In the opinion of a lot of Australians, that definition still stands.
Some of those definitions have only changed very recently (Queensland only criminalised assault in a marriage in 1989!).
The notion that marriage has always been the same for hundreds of years is a complete furphy. It has evolved and changed as society has evolved and changed and will continue to do so.
Last edited by dr dre; 24th Mar 2017 at 08:18.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've come to this thread late so forgive me if I go over ground covered. The major population similar but not the same as Australia who decided on this issue were the Irish. It passed on a plebiscite with the usual virulent pro and anti, religious and rainbow; opponents forming about 40%, probably 50% as the rainbow were better organised and religion is not all that popular in the Land of Saints and Scholars atm. This left 50-60% of voters. The main reason it passed was that many of the 50-60% had family members who were gay, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, sons and daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends who were gay. Ireland though diluted by the EU is still a reasonably homogenous society and much of the discourse was conducted outside of the media, amongst friends and family. We in Australia unfortunately have a very fractured political entity, poor family strength and a media which thrives on the rare, the freaks and the identity or socially committed outwith of family ties. I do not know how a plebiscite would go here. A NO vote would be more problematic as the rainbows are more committed socially and economically and would plague the issue. A YES would be the best, but Australia being so polarised atm, the delay in having the plebiscite, fed by the rainbow, would mitigate against this outcome. That is my take on it anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg:
Nice little straw man right there.
It is not a straw man argument at all. Numerous posters above have implied that a large company such as Qantas are attempting to undermine democracy by painting a jet and vocalising their support for SSM - apparently in a primitive attempt to undermine a plebescite and therefore democracy. You may not have suggested it youself (I think you may have, but I'm not prepared to trawl through the thread to prove it),, but my point in that remark was in response to other posters in the thread, not you.
But I note you have picked out one line from a long and considered post which I reproduce below. You have not made any effort to discuss any other points I have made.
So, to follow your theme, that's a nice little cherry picking argument right there.
I'd really like you to discuss the issues intelligently, otherwise I might get bored and devote more time to my traditional marriage.
Alan Joyce is not trying to undermine democracy by painting a rainbow logo on a jet.......
It is not a straw man argument at all. Numerous posters above have implied that a large company such as Qantas are attempting to undermine democracy by painting a jet and vocalising their support for SSM - apparently in a primitive attempt to undermine a plebescite and therefore democracy. You may not have suggested it youself (I think you may have, but I'm not prepared to trawl through the thread to prove it),, but my point in that remark was in response to other posters in the thread, not you.
But I note you have picked out one line from a long and considered post which I reproduce below. You have not made any effort to discuss any other points I have made.
So, to follow your theme, that's a nice little cherry picking argument right there.
I'd really like you to discuss the issues intelligently, otherwise I might get bored and devote more time to my traditional marriage.
Keg, my question was to Ken, not you, but since you've re-entered the debate:
Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.
It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.
You might perceive that it affects yours, but to use the phrase I used on myself recently, "that's your hang-up". Get over it.
So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights. Others will not be affected, unless they choose to be psychologically affected. Obviously you have a different opinion on that last bit.
Here is my take on "society", since the word seems to have so much value to you:
---
I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.
The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.
You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.
I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.
So entrenched was the word that the primary kids in school even called each other "Poofters" in the playground, years before they had any idea what the word actually meant. I was one of them.
Since then I have had the benefit of living and working in many places outside of where I grew up, and my morals and societal values have "progressed" if that is an appropriate word.
I even met Gay People, and fortunately, before I could locate a lead pipe, I worked out that they were actually ok. At first, I was scared of talking to them, because they might turn me gay. I later found out that it doesn't work that way. But it can be a steep learning curve. One night, I even tried having sex with one of them, but it turned out that she was a lesbian.
So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.
---
But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.
The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn. And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.
With regards to the Gay A330, let's think about Ptolemy vs Galileo/Copernicus.
Ptolemy was revered for his (incorrect) wisdom. Copernicus had to keep his (correct) wisdom in the closet for religious reasons and it wasn't until Galileo dared to insult "society" by suggesting that we can progress wisom with knowledge that he was shunned from society for religious reasons. Galileo didn't have any friends at the time who owned a global airline. Neither did Copernicus. But if Copernicus had mates in a local shipping company who could have been pursauded to paint logos of an earth revolving around a sun, who knows how much further advanced mankind would be today. Why do I bring this up? Because religious stalwarts have been holding up society for ever. And some of you are still trying to do it.
So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political? Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?
In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?
If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?
Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?
---
Edit: Keg, just after I asked Ida down not to get personal, I've realised that this post sounds personal. It's not intended to be, I'm just interested in your opinions on my questions as I've noted you are interested in intelligent debate. Whether I can participate in intelligent debate is of course up to you. When I say "you", I'm interested in your opinion as a "thinker" and any others of similar Christian faith, certainly not intending to attack you personally. I don't seek to "win", merely to debate.
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; 24th Mar 2017 at 12:10.
Marriage since 1300 has also been defined as being a relationship between two people of the same race only, or of the same social class or faith, or who's partners were chosen by their parents, or where unions between cousins were very common, or where multiple partners inside or outside of marriage were common and accepted, or where marriages were almost solely performed in churches only, or where women have had lesser legal rights, or where having children was mandatory, or where no fault divorce didn't exist, or where a woman couldn't vote or legally own property, or where a man could legally assault his partner.
The notion that marriage has always been the same for hundreds of years is a complete furphy.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, every religion has their own version of marriage. And those who subscribe to no religion do too (and we appear to be in the majority). So which version do you submit the Australian Governnent should subscribe to? Yours? Forsaking all others?
Do you decry the secular constitution upon which our nation is based?
Last edited by Derfred; 24th Mar 2017 at 14:27.