Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

BruceFromBalnarring said:
A genuinely held and, it would seem justified, sense that it would open the door for so called progressives to will the "extinction of the dinosaurs".

I have a question for you. At my club there's a pair of old blokes. About 85yo I reckon. I call them Stadler and Waldorf.

They don't hate gays as such, but they have a pretty set, and old school, caricature in their minds as to what it is to be gay. So they, on occasion, will call an opposition player a NTTAWWTter.

My reaction to this has been to gently remind them that such language is no longer acceptable at our club. They always kind of chuckle and say "Sorry Brucie."

Should I kick them out of the club? They've been around 60 odd years.
Click to expand...
Would you kick them out if they continually refer to players as niggers?
 
RobbieK said:
You appear to feel oppressed by people "lecturing" you or delivering "sermons" on issues of gender and sexuality, resent being asked to consider the effects of language, resist the idea that perhaps there is still work to do on achieving certain equalities... You have repeatedly presented yourself as victimised by what you perceive to be unwelcome social expectations to question your assumptions.
Click to expand...

Well I don't feel oppressed. I feel fortunate that one of my very few talents is expression. Despite your's and Kummerspeck's wilful misinterpretation of much of what I have written, and complete ignorance as, I guess, inconvenience of other things I have written, I well know that many reading what I am writing know exactly what I am saying and agree entirely with it. But for those who are not so blessed with the capacity for expression, it is important that people like me fight the good fight. Because more and more people are feeling marginalised (and, for the sake of clarity for those reading we have moved on from basic homosexuality here and are more talking about gender fluidity type stuff which is where RobbieK and I have clashed earlier) and unable to express themselves because the thought police, which is you, will call them dinosaurs and bigots.
 
MarkP said:
HAHAHAHAHA! Oh I see - done on the main board. Well it is all decided then.

I find it hilarious that you both answered in a heartbeat of each other with the same old talking point. It is as if there is only one point of view or something. Only one way to think. Gorgeous - and scarily telling in fascist and totalitarian. And then breaking that awful awful dangerous and disgusting thought process down to a vote on a narrowly worded voluntary survey as if it defines a person in totality. Gee whiz that's nuts.

But I dunno let's toss a few before I trot off to my knitting circle, not that you really care. Better to yell bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe and tweet about it or something.

Many thousands of years of human tradition across all cultures

An individuals right to believe that language and words have meaning. And bastardisation of them is not right in the pursuit of politics.

Despising identity politics because you actually appreciate its danger. In other words you have a brain.

Religious freedom.

Free thought.

Free expression.

The realisation that this was done for control.

The total lack of any legal progression.

Dislike of symbolism.

You are a Muslim.

You know - stuff like that.

Back in the day the gay community used to laugh at the straights - silly people getting married, we are so far beyond that and free in our sub culture and perfectly happy. Wonder what happened? Now its BIGOTS BIGOTS EVERYWHERE

Bet you 2 kids can't guess which way I voted and why. Love you to have a try.
Click to expand...

From your list you have a few that are clearly simply because of bigotry against homosexuals:

Many thousands of years of human tradition across all cultures
Religious freedom.
You are a Muslim.
An individuals right to believe that language and words have meaning. And bastardisation of them is not right in the pursuit of politics.

You have a couple of statements that aren't actually a reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry:
Free thought.
Free expression.
Dislike of symbolism.

And then you have some tin foil hat nonsense:
The realisation that this was done for control.
The total lack of any legal progression.
Despising identity politics because you actually appreciate its danger. In other words you have a brain.

So yeah, not seeing any reasonable explanations here for denying people rights due to their sexuality.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RobbieK said:
From your list you have a few that are clearly simply because of bigotry against homosexuals:

Many thousands of years of human tradition across all cultures
Religious freedom.
You are a Muslim.
An individuals right to believe that language and words have meaning. And bastardisation of them is not right in the pursuit of politics.

You have a couple of statements that aren't actually a reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry:
Free thought.
Free expression.
Dislike of symbolism.

And then you have some tin foil hat nonsense:
The realisation that this was done for control.
The total lack of any legal progression.
Despising identity politics because you actually appreciate its danger. In other words you have a brain.

So yeah, not seeing any reasonable explanations here for denying people rights due to their sexuality.
Click to expand...

What should I do, as an administrator, if a group of Muslims, Sudanese ones, come down to play and start making jokes about gays?

And by the way, gays always had the right to marry. What they got was their marriages recognised by the state. So free thought and free expression are entirely relevant.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
That's a good question. Probably. But nigger has been an offensive expression when used in a derogatory fashion since at least the 70s. NTTAWWTter has only been a "bad word" for around 20 years if that.
Click to expand...
You would probably throw out members of your club who repeatedly referred to players as niggers? You value the ability of two 85-year-old men to use known racist and homophobic slurs more than your club providing a place free from them?
BruceFromBalnarring said:
What should I do, as an administrator, if a group of Muslims, Sudanese ones, come down to play and start making jokes about gays?
Click to expand...
You let them know homophobic behaviour isn't welcome and turf them if they maintain it. How is this a deep thought process for you?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
What should I do, as an administrator, if a group of Muslims, Sudanese ones, come down to play and start making jokes about gays?

And by the way, gays always had the right to marry. What they got was their marriages recognised by the state. So free thought and free expression are entirely relevant.
Click to expand...

This is simple. There is no new-age political tippy toes to step on. You as an organisation stand for the inclusion and affirmation of individuals within it. Several individuals (they're ancestry doesn't matter here) are breaking team regulations.

Your conversational/ administrative rights are not being taken away under the changes taken place. You're no enemy just because. You need to open your mouth first.

*I'm assuming the rules are enforced consistently
 
Last edited:
BruceFromBalnarring said:
What should I do, as an administrator, if a group of Muslims, Sudanese ones, come down to play and start making jokes about gays?

And by the way, gays always had the right to marry. What they got was their marriages recognised by the state. So free thought and free expression are entirely relevant.
Click to expand...

They didn't have the same right to get married. It did not come with the same legal standing. This was a major issue.

Free thought and free expression are not a reason to deny someone else rights. People have the right to say and think what they want, they have the right to say no, they don't think gay people can marry... but that isn't a REASON to deny homosexuals that right. It is an argument that their bigotry should be acceptable, not an argument that they are not bigots.
 
Kummerspeck said:
You would probably throw out members of your club who repeatedly referred to players as niggers? You value the ability of two 85-year-old men to use known racist and homophobic slurs more than your club providing a place free from them?

You let them know homophobic behaviour isn't welcome and turf them if they maintain it. How is this a deep thought process for you?
Click to expand...

It's a deep thought process because these are 2 old blokes, without spouses, and with pretty much bugger all left in their not very long to go lives. You seem to want me to deliver them a life sentence of loneliness and exclusion based on entrenched behaviour and beliefs dating back 80 odd years. Interestingly, when I consulted the gay players regarding this they were stronger about retaining the old blokes than I was, for which I was grateful.
 
Dan87 said:
This is simple. There is no new-age political tippy toes to step on. You as an organisation stand for the inclusion and affirmation of individuals within it. Several individuals (they're ancestry doesn't matter here) are breaking team regulations.

You're conversational/ administrative rights are not being taken away under the changes taken place. You're no enemy just because. You need to open your mouth first.

*I'm assuming the rules are enforced consistently
Click to expand...

And if they respond by saying I am discriminating against them based upon their religion? Their religion which requires them to condemn buggery.

Nothing is ever simple when you have responsibility.

By the way, Aborigines tend to be less tolerant of gays as well.
 
RobbieK said:
What latrogenic reason is there for voting no?
Click to expand...

There isn't (I was being facetious), but for argument's sake, interventions to try and make things better/more equal often breed further interventions and can have unintended consequences, e.g. if you grant rights to group X with the (noble) aim of improving equality for group X, then what's to stop group Y at a later date for lobbying for even more rights? Where does it end? I'm not saying that this the case here, but can you at least see the possibility that this MIGHT create a cycle of victimhood? Is that what we want? Wouldn't it be better to aim for a society where it doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight, and you get treated with decency regardless of what the law says?

Back to the topic, as far as the club's participation in the Mardi Gras goes, I really can't see a problem with it and think it will be good PR for the club, and I actually think that the yes vote has been positive for the country, as it gave the yes camp what they wanted and showed those in the no camp that their lives could go on unaffected (the world hasn't ended).
 
RobbieK said:
They didn't have the same right to get married. It did not come with the same legal standing. This was a major issue.

Free thought and free expression are not a reason to deny someone else rights. People have the right to say and think what they want, they have the right to say no, they don't think gay people can marry... but that isn't a REASON to deny homosexuals that right. It is an argument that their bigotry should be acceptable, not an argument that they are not bigots.
Click to expand...

It wasn't recognised. Those who believe in "traditional marriage" believe the state has nothing to do with it. No father in law has ever once been sanctioned for refusing to recognise his beautiful daughter's marriage to that freak down the road. Yet this legislation comes with sanctions against people, entirely removed from the marriage, for their non-recognition.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RW said:
There isn't (I was being facetious), but for argument's sake, interventions to try and make things better/more equal often breed further interventions and can have unintended consequences, e.g. if you grant rights to group X with the (noble) aim of improving equality for group X, then what's to stop group Y at a later date for lobbying for even more rights? Where does it end? I'm not saying that this the case here, but can you at least see the possibility that this MIGHT create a cycle of victimhood? Is that what we want? Wouldn't it be better to aim for a society where it doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight, and you get treated with decency regardless of what the law says?
Click to expand...

So the best you can come up with is some spurious slippery slope? That others may ask for rights later may happen. Their claims will be dealt with later. The issue at hand is if the rights of homosexuals, two consenting adults, to marry. If you deny them that right because you fear someone will some day want to legally marry a tree or all of their seven children then it is clear you relate homosexual marriage more to these hypothetical demands than a straight marriage, which can only be the result of bigotry.

It would be great to aim for a society where it didn't matter whether you are gay or straight and you get treated with decency regardless. To expect that to happen while the law enshrines inequalities is pretty unrealistic I would think.

RW said:
Back to the topic, as far as the club's participation in the Mardi Gras goes, I really can't see a problem with it and think it will be good PR for the club, and I actually think that the yes vote has been positive for the country, as it gave the yes camp what they wanted and showed those in the no camp that their lives could go on unaffected (the world hasn't ended).
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
RobbieK said:
So the best you can come up with is some spurious slippery slope? That others may ask for rights later may happen. Their claims will be dealt with later. The issue at hand is if the rights of homosexuals, two consenting adults, to marry. If you deny them that right because you fear someone will some day want to legally marry a tree or all of their seven children then it is clear you relate homosexual marriage more to these hypothetical demands than a straight marriage, which can only be the result of bigotry.

It would be great to aim for a society where it didn't matter whether you are gay or straight and you get treated with decency regardless. To expect that to happen while the law enshrines inequalities is pretty unrealistic I would think.
Click to expand...

This, from you, is actually hysterical. You are the slippery slope.
 
RobbieK said:
If you deny them that right because you fear someone will some day want to legally marry a tree or all of their seven children then it is clear you relate homosexual marriage more to these hypothetical demands than a straight marriage, which can only be the result of bigotry.
Click to expand...

I don't think 39% of Australians are bigots, but if that's your version of reality, then whatever floats your boat...
 
Kummerspeck said:
This has been done on the main board. What reasons were there to vote no that weren't based on bigotry or religiously justified homophobia?
Click to expand...

Whoa ok. I voted no and I'm no bigot or homophobic. Men want to have sex with other men....cool it's their business......literally too. Not my business. Any configuration of people who love is a positive in the world. Gay lesbian or hetero. See no homophobia or bigotry

So why did I vote no? Because marriage is a tradition and an institution which has at it's centre procreation as it's goal and has evolved from that point of view through history. Men and women are genetically engineered to perpetuate the species. That is fact. Any deviation from that is therefore a genetic anomaly....a man who instead has too much gentic influences or environmental circumstances motivating attraction same sex. Nothing wrong with that because the world is full of variety in gentics but it's fact. News flash though .......no matter how long they plug away at it there ain't going to be a baby. Yeah yeah surrogates right? Not natural though is it. Hang on joe I'll bring my sister into the room now

So for me it bastardises what has been an historical tradition. A gay man might say that my reason isn't sufficient because they love each other and deserve to be able to identify the same way. Shame sure. Some get to be part of a club and others don't. I'd love to be an Olympian but I'm not equipped to be. See
 
puke said:
So why did I vote no? Because marriage is a tradition and an institution which has at it's centre
procreation as it's goal and has evolved from that point of view through history. Men and women are genetically engineered to perpetuate the species. That is fact. Any deviation from that is therefore a genetic anomaly....a man who instead has too much gentic influences or environmental circumstances motivating attraction same sex. Nothing wrong with that because the world is full of variety in gentics but it's fact. News flash though .......no matter how long they plug away at it there ain't going to be a baby. Yeah yeah surrogates right? Not natural though is it. Hang on joe I'll bring my sister into the room now
Click to expand...

I don't think 'because it's tradition' is a good argument against change, but I can't argue with science.
 
RW said:
I don't think 'because it's tradition' is a good argument against change, but I can't argue with science.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure it is. Traditions are embedded as learned behaviour in every societal way. Glory boxes, courting, chaperone,engagements, asking permission, bucks/hens night, honeymoon, consummation....all having their place throughout history all geared to a man and woman acts of consummation and procreation. Even all the movies we've ever watched are reinforcing the stereotype romantic of boy meets girl fall in love and marry living happily ever after.

Am I being selfish and exclusive. Maybe. But that's my belief system and I'd prefer not to compromise it.
 
puke said:
Yeah sure it is. Traditions are embedded as learned behaviour in every societal way. Glory boxes, courting, chaperone,engagements, asking permission, bucks/hens night, honeymoon, consummation....all having their place throughout history all geared to a man and woman acts of consummation and procreation. Even all the movies we've ever watched are reinforcing the stereotype romantic of boy meets girl fall in love and marry living happily ever after.

Am I being selfish and exclusive. Maybe. But that's my belief system and I'd prefer not to compromise it.
Click to expand...
A lot of those movie stars playing the boy meets girl gets married are gay in real life, my Mum still can't accept Rock Hudson was gay and he and James Dean were lovers.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Yes. If in this long line of made up scenarios of yours members of your club are repeatedly being homophobic, throw them out. They wouldn't be protected by religious discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Let me add a further complication to this hypothetical. The cops come down and say “Brucie, we really need these boys in a club environment. Their home life is Hell and they’re susceptible to gang recruitment.” Should I still boot out the blacks if they don’t like the homosexuals?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
No. That's why I made my 3rd point separate to my 1st and 2nd points. They're kind of related, but different.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point and disagree with your second point (you still hear people in the crowds calling opposition players and umpires NTTAWWTters). But even if I did agree with your second point, neither of those first two points negate my point that entering a float in an exuberant event like the Mardi Gras is hardly "badgering" or "perpetuating victimhood", so I'm not sure why Point 3 is there.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Let me add a further complication to this hypothetical. The cops come down and say “Brucie, we really need these boys in a club environment. Their home life is Hell and they’re susceptible to gang recruitment.” Should I still boot out the blacks if they don’t like the homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Why do you consistently come up with hypotheticals excusing homophobia instead of considering the effect on the targets? For someone who's a champion for gays according to all his gay mates, you seem to really be struggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top