News St Kilda and Essendon to stage AFL's first 'Pride Cup'

Remove this Banner Ad

VDS66 said:
And...

I don't want any such game associated with a team of cheats. What a croc. Why not the WB or Norf?

Essendon do not deserve a free PR handball from the AFL. They have enough big games.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. And why oh why was the self confessed drug cheat, who admitted to it on live TV, made a multicultural ambassador? It's a punch in the face.
 
Kildonan said:
Equality scale: how Australia compares to other countries on gay rights
JUNE 01, 2013 8:00AM

YOU might think it's been a good year for the gays; rainbows, marriage and a bunch of legislation that's changing the way we view homosexuality and equal rights.

Last month, France joined the likes of New Zealand, Belgium, Spain and Canada to become the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage.

In the US, Minnesota became the 12th State, and the third in two weeks, to legalise gay marriage after passing a bill 37-30 last week. It joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, Brazil cleared the way after a judicial panel ruled that gay couples will be granted licenses.

"This is the equivalent of authorising homosexual marriage in Brazil," said Raquel Pereira de Castro Araujo, head of the human rights committee of the Brazilian bar association.

Last week in Britain, a bill to legalise gay marriage passed a crucial hurdle in parliament, 366 to 161.

On the flip side, a string of violent demonstrations, hate crimes and bills outlawing gay rights across the globe is proof we’re not quite over the rainbow – yet.

This month the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) released disturbing figures off the back of Europe’s largest

Much of the rest of the world are more advanced than Australia in the legislation of rights for Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Intersex, Bisexual and Asexual people. Despite this Australia is the fifth most supportive country in the world behind Czech Republic, Canada, Germany and Spain, which ranked first, according to a 2013 poll conducted by Pew Research. The poll indicated that 79% of Australians viewed that homosexuality should be accepted by society.
Click to expand...

Part of the gay marriage issue is the politicians we have in power are fundamental in their viewpoint on this. They are over represented and actually not representative of the general population on this issue.

Edit - just to qualify, by in power I mean all parties.
 
Has the Women's Round had any correlatively diminishing effect on misogyny and violent crime against women?

No, because the issue is far deeper seeded than what is being addressed. Societal acceptance is larger than sport.


The AFL's intent is great, however the perception from all parties is condescension.

Major influences on the prejudice surviving (not in particular order) are;

  • Fundamentalist religion and our tie with it due to inherent Catholicism in virtually all its forms
  • Lack of education regarding sexual practices outside of courting and conception during formative years for those now over the age of perhaps 20-25 (linked to above)
  • Political appeasement of the masses through such things as figureheads being seen to be married (heteronormatively) and making sure nobody finds out they're really not in it for the usual purpose
  • Lack of action against esoteric organisations actively seeking out victims, thus leading to horror stories being passed around and discovered at an early age ('brooming' in women's jail, anyone?)
  • Usage of stereotypes in media along with deliberate adoption of stereotypical mannerisms and phrasing by those for whom the stereotype exists. eg. childish lisping/overaccentuation

A colleague once said to me on a workgroup weekend away, 'I don't know how to light a barbecue, I'm gay'.

I don't think he ever got bashed in the past for not learning how to light a barbecue, but I sure as hell felt like clipping him under the ear for using that bullshit excuse.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

sauce_head said:
Part of the gay marriage issue is the politicians we have in power are fundamental in their viewpoint on this. They are over represented and actually not representative of the general population on this issue.

Edit - just to qualify, by in power I mean all parties.
Click to expand...

Below is part of a conversation I had with a friend...

you asked me if I thought gay marriage would ever be legal... problem is that most pollies rely on blocks of votes to get elected. If a Priest stands up in mass and says gay marriage is evil, then people will vote for the pollie that reflects that view. Religious organisations hold massive influence in Canberra and it does not help that the PM is a homophobic catholic. That said, I think it will happen eventually. Problem is that it isn't an issue at the forefront of straight people's minds and there is still so much bigotry out there... but it will come soon.
 
I believe that "coming out" was a masterstroke of the gay rights movement.
While gays were anonymous it was easy for the slurs to build into becoming accepted norms
Coming out forced people to put a human face on being gay. These were friendly people that they met every day, suddenly the demonization that had been perpetrated by the homophobes could be seen to be patently untrue.

The AFL want to contribute in taking this a step further. A fairly large percentage of the population are still being victims of bigotry, physical abuse, suffering and sometimes worse. They are making people aware that this behavior is not on. Their stance on racial abuse has been well received by the general public, in fact I believe it has been instrumental in accelerating our development as a nation toward a much more enlightened and fair ideal.
 
Last edited:
Kildonan said:
I believe that "coming out" was a masterstroke of the gay rights movement.
While gays were anonymous it was easy for the slurs to build into becoming accepted norms
Coming out forced people to put a human face on being gay. These were friendly people that they met every day, suddenly the demonization that had been perpetrated by the homophobes could be seen to be patently untrue.

The AFL want to contribute in taking this a step further. A fairly large percentage of the population are still being suffering from bigotry, physical abuse, and sometimes worse. They are making people aware that this is not on. Their stance on racial abuse has been well received by the general public, in fact I believe it has been instrumental in accelerating our development as a nation toward a much more enlightened and fair ideal.
Click to expand...

Yes it has, but the difference here is that with the racial stuff, we knew who the indigenous players were. Winmar was abused for being black. Yet we don't know if there are any playing AFL. We don't see vilification of gay players who are openly "out". It's not as if player Z is openly gay and thena player calls him a ****** or whatever. Of course we may have players calling others gay and actual gay players being offended by the comments, but we can't be sure.

That's why I think the AFL should focus more on changing players'attitudes and nurturing an environment where players can come out. THEN you can start to change public opinion. THEN you can say that you are leading by example.
 
VDS66 said:
That's why I think the AFL should focus more on changing players' attitudes and nurturing an environment where players can come out.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what what they are doing. Changing players' attitudes by making sure that homophobic slurs are seen for what they really are. All of society should follow suit by not tacitly condoning homophobic slurs under the guise of humour or sledging. Words like gay have been re-badged to have a negative connotation. This is part of it, but it is not the full extent.

Our society has been somewhat accepting of anti-gay bigotry. One way to analyse whether the usage of the word is acceptable is to substitute an emotive word like "black" for gay and see if that could be taken as offensive - if it can be interpreted that way and yet you didn't see it that way then maybe it is because you have been acculturated into accepting it.
 
Last edited:
Society has been somewhat accepting of all sorts of bigotry. But hey, we are all entitled to be bigots according to our AG. Free speech and all that...
 
VDS66 said:
Society has been somewhat accepting of all sorts of bigotry. But hey, we are all entitled to be bigots according to our AG. Free speech and all that...
Click to expand...

All of us are bigots. A bigot is somebody who does not agree with you and will not change their mind. YES WE ALL ARE ENTITLED TO BE BIGOTS. The shouting is becouse freedom deserves to be shouted out LOUD.
 
big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree]
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

big·ot
[big-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
t]
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Origin:
1590–1600; < Middle French ( Old French: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans),perhaps < Old English bī God by God
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ok...

So I tolerate and respect a person's right to have an opinion, even if I disagree with it.

Although my opinions may differ, I can be persuaded through logic and reason to change my opinion. IE: Through education.

What does that make me?
 
VDS66 said:
Ok...

So I tolerate and respect a person's right to have an opinion, even if I disagree with it.

Although my opinions may differ, I can be persuaded through logic and reason to change my opinion. IE: Through education.

What does that make me?
Click to expand...
I wasn't calling anyone a bigot - just defining terms
 
And in the interests of free speech, this is a thread that deserves to be shut down. :)
 
This area of public thought is fraught with excess of emotion, where words and their definitions become part of a veil of tears.
George Brandis' comments on Bigotry haven't helped nor does the call to freedom.

The question should be "Is this response proportionate?" George Brandis as A.G. more than anyone should understand the consequences of a call to bigotry, is this responsible behaviour for a man of his position? I would say no.

The call to freedom and free speech is somewhat a red herring, is it reasonable that any thing can be said without consequence? There is an immense scale of grey. No-one should be killed for what they say, or believe or think, but then the greater power they have in the lives of others the more responsible they need to be, the onus on the powerful whether it be in government or media is to understand the influence they have and the consequences of their actions. The truth is whatever we say or think or believe has consequence in our own lives and the lives of those around us, nothing is without consequence, nothing is free, to insist on freedom in any form is juvenile, rather insist that the consequences should be proportionate and work out what that is.

We all have responsibility in other peoples lives, the basics of human respect guides us to treat them as another human individual; whomever we are dealing with it is a person in front of us, a person with a past, present and future that is different to our own, their human rights are the same as our own, as are their responsibilities. How much emphasis we place on other peoples sexuality reflects far more on us than it does on them.
 
Noidenous said:
Has the Women's Round had any correlatively diminishing effect on misogyny and violent crime against women?

No, because the issue is far deeper seeded than what is being addressed. Societal acceptance is larger than sport.
.
Click to expand...

I thought the point of women's round was to thank, and highlight the role women play in footy, on the back of that breast cancer has been included.. (the pink lady thingy). I don't think the intention was to diminish misogyny and violent crime ~ although yeah, that would be nice if society could just manage to do that... but I digress.
 
VDS66 said:
Well don't include me in your generalisations.

Your entitlement to be a bigot is a great argument for the ignorant to justify their twisted views. But I don't know you and cannot pass judgement by applying this to you.
Click to expand...

Tough I did and do. And you you do not like it meh. Ignorant? Twisted? By whose judgement.Tolerance is a two way street. But while all of us here are saints in a football sense, none of us are saints in a ethical sense.
 
Moral Decay said:
This area of public thought is fraught with excess of emotion, where words and their definitions become part of a veil of tears.
George Brandis' comments on Bigotry haven't helped nor does the call to freedom.

The question should be "Is this response proportionate?" George Brandis as A.G. more than anyone should understand the consequences of a call to bigotry, is this responsible behaviour for a man of his position? I would say no.

The call to freedom and free speech is somewhat a red herring, is it reasonable that any thing can be said without consequence? There is an immense scale of grey. No-one should be killed for what they say, or believe or think, but then the greater power they have in the lives of others the more responsible they need to be, the onus on the powerful whether it be in government or media is to understand the influence they have and the consequences of their actions. The truth is whatever we say or think or believe has consequence in our own lives and the lives of those around us, nothing is without consequence, nothing is free, to insist on freedom in any form is juvenile, rather insist that the consequences should be proportionate and work out what that is.

We all have responsibility in other peoples lives, the basics of human respect guides us to treat them as another human individual; whomever we are dealing with it is a person in front of us, a person with a past, present and future that is different to our own, their human rights are the same as our own, as are their responsibilities. How much emphasis we place on other peoples sexuality reflects far more on us than it does on them.
Click to expand...

In a legal sense, yes unless one is defaming or inciting. In a social sense certainly not. Do not attempt to shut up those who you do not agree with, listen, attempt to alter their view if you cannot agree. Note who they are and refuse to deal with them at worst. But legal punishment for thinking and saying what the present group think may disagree with? Never. One only has to look at past group thinks and how they changed to understand that people speaking out and disagreeing is the only way to progress.
 
Baldur said:
In a legal sense, yes unless one is defaming or inciting. In a social sense certainly not. Do not attempt to shut up those who you do not agree with, listen, attempt to alter their view if you cannot agree. Note who they are and refuse to deal with them at worst. But legal punishment for thinking and saying what the present group think may disagree with? Never. One only has to look at past group thinks and how they changed to understand that people speaking out and disagreeing is the only way to progress.
Click to expand...

Proportionate is the word, I'm not advocating sanctioned punishment for words or beliefs, just saying out that the cry freedom ideals are misleading, while the law can only be just in it's own time the law like society isn't a fixed truth, just a reflection of the mores of our society. By all means stand up to group think, but have the courage accept the approbation that may follow. If people don't have the courage for that then they can cloak themselves in the martyrdom of freedom.
 
Baldur said:
Tough I did and do. And you you do not like it meh. Ignorant? Twisted? By whose judgement.Tolerance is a two way street. But while all of us here are saints in a football sense, none of us are saints in a ethical sense.
Click to expand...

Like I say, I don't judge you, but hey if you feel good judging me, then go for it. For all you know I might just be gay. Then again you might be gay and my views are not congruent with yours.

I take it that you are tolerant? Well, I am accepting. Huge difference. Some of us just like to live God's will by showing love and compassion regardless of race colour or sexuality.

Ignorant? My oath. People who are ignorant and think that gays choose to be gay, or that it's a mental illness. That sort of ignorance is what I am talking about. Or people that brand all refugees as some sort of criminals who are invading our country.

we have gone off topic and these issues are not really for a forum because you do not get the full context of the posts.

Let's move on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top