Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Mister B]

Usually reluctant to add my two cents worth in such a discussion. What I would ask is this:
Do people have issues with us doing school visits? Do people have issues with us working with kids in hospitals through RedKite? Do people have issues with us doing junior clinics? Do people have issues with us visiting the workplaces of sponsors? No? These are all examples of club employees engaging in the community, not always with football the focus. Isn't putting together a float for Mardi Gras engaging in the community as well, albeit the LGBTIQ community? If so, how is it different?

Just yesterday we posted on social media that Andrew Ireland was helping sell the Big Issue. Aren't we shining a light on the plight of the homeless by doing so? Does anyone find that inappropriate? Reality is, the club aren't making any of us jump on the float ourselves, they are not even demanding that you watch it. Simply, if you don't like it, wipe it from your mind and let it pass by without a thought.

 

[mtooler]

Just out of interest, do you go to the footy on a Sunday?

Too far away to go regularly, nothing wrong with going to footy on a Sunday. If you're talking about the Sabbath its on a Saturday not Sunday. Not that it matters though as Jesuse said people werent created for the sabbath the sabbath was created for people so thats why Christians often raise eyebrows as to some similarish faiths refusing to do anything on a sabbath.

 

[BarneyBent]

I voted no on faith based reasons based on what the Bible teaches. However I totally understand why people say it discriminates against gay relationships, as it does and speaks against them clearly. Im not a Christian that picks and chooses the politically correct scriptures and ignores the others. Other no voters may have done likewise along faith based reasons. To people who dont believe the Bible is truth it will look like discrimination however and I totally get that, but Im not apologetic for believing in what I believe to be God's word.

Thank you. I respect that. Disagree vehemently but I respect you’re honest about it and I do understand the faith based approach.

I have no time for people who claim to not be discriminatory while being exactly that. It’s not even a big deal to be a bit bigoted. Everybody has their biases, it’s normal, it’s human. It’s also damaging and we should recognise it and seek to improve. That’s all it’s really about. I’m not going to crucify someone for being ignorant or having prejudices, but I will make sure they’re made aware of them.

 

[Kapanis]

Too far away to go regularly, nothing wrong with going to footy on a Sunday. If you're talking about the Sabbath its on a Saturday not Sunday. Not that it matters though as Jesuse said people werent created for the sabbath the sabbath was created for people so thats why Christians often raise eyebrows as to some similarish faiths refusing to do anything on a sabbath.

Unless your Jewish it's Sunday

 

[Kapanis]

Too far away to go regularly, nothing wrong with going to footy on a Sunday. If you're talking about the Sabbath its on a Saturday not Sunday. Not that it matters though as Jesuse said people werent created for the sabbath the sabbath was created for people so thats why Christians often raise eyebrows as to some similarish faiths refusing to do anything on a sabbath.

Don't mean to sound pedantic, and whether it's Sat or Sunday given your Christian beliefs, does that mean anyone who works on the sabbath, ie footy players, coaches, security, pie sellers, bar staff etc are breaking a holy commandment and therefore dammed to hell for eternity, that is unless they recant their sins of working on the sabbath, before they die? You know, because you can't just pick and choose which bits to adhere to in the bible.

 

[mtooler]

Thank you. I respect that. Disagree vehemently but I respect you’re honest about it and I do understand the faith based approach.

I have no time for people who claim to not be discriminatory while being exactly that. It’s not even a big deal to be a bit bigoted. Everybody has their biases, it’s normal, it’s human. It’s also damaging and we should recognise it and seek to improve. That’s all it’s really about. I’m not going to crucify someone for being ignorant or having prejudices, but I will make sure they’re made aware of them.

I dont see it as bigoted as it implies a right and wrong and you assume you're right, but I respect that you put it in a nice way

 

[mtooler]

Unless your Jewish it's Sunday

Denominations don't get to choose when Sabbath is its sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday if you want to get technical. Stepping into the bible arena is not advisable haha, fair warning given

 

[Kapanis]

Denominations don't get to choose when Sabbath is its sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday if you want to get technical. Stepping into the bible arena is not advisable haha, fair warning given

I'm ready

 

[mtooler]

I'm ready

Sorry, didnt see your PM, all good, will send a PM.

 

[BarneyBent]

Usually reluctant to add my two cents worth in such a discussion. What I would ask is this:
Do people have issues with us doing school visits? Do people have issues with us working with kids in hospitals through RedKite? Do people have issues with us doing junior clinics? Do people have issues with us visiting the workplaces of sponsors? No? These are all examples of club employees engaging in the community, not always with football the focus. Isn't putting together a float for Mardi Gras engaging in the community as well, albeit the LGBTIQ community? If so, how is it different?

Just yesterday we posted on social media that Andrew Ireland was helping sell the Big Issue. Aren't we shining a light on the plight of the homeless by doing so? Does anyone find that inappropriate? Reality is, the club aren't making any of us jump on the float ourselves, they are not even demanding that you watch it. Simply, if you don't like it, wipe it from your mind and let it pass by without a thought.

Exactly. The negative response in this thread is all the evidence you need to see why they’re doing it.

 

[Kummerspeck]

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

I know you guys have an image of a bigot as a Nazi or a random obscenity-spewing moron, but if you voted to deny a group different to yours equal access to laws or rights that are granted to other groups based on an opinion you refuse to compromise on, you're a bigot.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I know you guys have an image of a bigot as a Nazi or a random obscenity-spewing moron, but if you voted to deny a group different to yours equal access to laws or rights that are granted to other groups based on an opinion you refuse to compromise on, you're a bigot.

Laws are another thing entirely and certainly access to equality under law is a given. That shouldn't mean the concept of marriage is bastardised to achieve it. Lots of ways equality can be preserved short of messing with the historical tradition of marriage.

As for your slight in calling me a Bigot I will allow latitude because you are passionate about YOUR needs. That latitude is a once only concession. Don't press me.

"A bigot is defined to be someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

My opinion explained is different from yours. I understand your view and your right to it but respectively disagree. I don't hate homosexuals because they are. Quite the contrary I'm quite ashamed of homophobia and homophobic persecution that has historically persisted, but is changing. I fully endorse any configuration of relationship where there is love: gay, lesbian or hetero. My partners son is gay and I have a great relationship with him to the point of him saying I'm more like a dad to him than his own dad was/is. Seems pretty tolerant to me.

Gays as a minority and like all minorities have an urgent need for validation because of the persecution they've experienced. Historical and societal influence. They see a change to marriage laws as an avenue for that validation. I'm sympathetic to that because living a life as a minority can't be easy. I'm not that sympathetic I feel the need to change my opinion around marriage. There is real danger that passionate belief in ideals important to you to the point of intimidation and vitriol is demonstrably intolerant. I'll let others judge who fits the definition.

 

[Kirkswan]

Bloody amazing this! The Mardi Gras, and by extension the Swans float, is simply to raise awareness of the issues faced by those who are sexually discriminated against. Raising awareness generates discussion (see this thread), and discussion and public awareness generates change. It hasn't even started yet, and it's achieved it's objective.

I totally agree with standing up for your opinions. I do it all the time. BUT, you must be very careful not to victimise or vilify those with differing opinions, and that has not been the case in this thread. Passionately believing something is all well and good, but you must apply perspective and understanding. Sitting in judgement of other peoples views is fraught with dangers. Calling them names for the views they hold, misquoting or taking things out of context, is detrimental to your argument and reduces the value of your comments.

In Australia, the 'Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986' protects the right of Australians not to be discriminated against due to Age, Sex, Sexuality, Religion, Race amongst other things. Those who are vilifying certain religions are also breaking the law. [Ref: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00143]

BruceFromBalnarring (imo) is correct, when stating that discrimination due to sexuality is not as prevalent as it was. If your perspective covers the 60s through to now, it's not prevalent at all. That is a matter of perspective. That is not to say that it does not exist, and does not happen. That also does not mean that nothing further needs to be done. Just that compared to 50 years ago, what was once rampant in all aspects of life, is now not.

I too, believe that sport not should be used as a vehicle to pursue political, social, religious or economic agendas. I believe that it is vital that there remain certain elements of life that are not there for any reason but enjoyment.

As always, just my opinion...

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Bloody amazing this! The Mardi Gras, and by extension the Swans float, is simply to raise awareness of the issues faced by those who are sexually discriminated against. Raising awareness generates discussion (see this thread), and discussion and public awareness generates change. It hasn't even started yet, and it's achieved it's objective.

I totally agree with standing up for your opinions. I do it all the time. BUT, you must be very careful not to victimise or vilify those with differing opinions, and that has not been the case in this thread. Passionately believing something is all well and good, but you must apply perspective and understanding. Sitting in judgement of other peoples views is fraught with dangers. Calling them names for the views they hold, misquoting or taking things out of context, is detrimental to your argument and reduces the value of your comments.

In Australia, the 'Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986' protects the right of Australians not to be discriminated against due to Age, Sex, Sexuality, Religion, Race amongst other things. Those who are vilifying certain religions are also breaking the law. [Ref: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00143]

BruceFromBalnarring (imo) is correct, when stating that discrimination due to sexuality is not as prevalent as it was. If your perspective covers the 60s through to now, it's not prevalent at all. That is a matter of perspective. That is not to say that it does not exist, and does not happen. That also does not mean that nothing further needs to be done. Just that compared to 50 years ago, what was once rampant in all aspects of life, is now not.

I too, believe that sport not should be used as a vehicle to pursue political, social, religious or economic agendas. I believe that it is vital that there remain certain elements of life that are not there for any reason but enjoyment.

As always, just my opinion...

The Mardi Gras is to raise awareness about those who are sexually discriminated against. lol Mmmmmmm..........maybe once. Now tbh I think it's a good excuse for a whole heap of gays and lesbians to suggestively parade around half nude or with transvestic fetishism to engage in promiscuous sex in the after party. Nothing wrong with that I might add.....but let's be honest...it's a party to hook up. But I'm cynical. Perhaps we could get more informed insight from some gays who actually do attend? .........and be honest.

If my partners gay son is any indication the only thing of importance is the female attire he might choose.......and the colour of the lipstick. "Pick one out will you.....this is embarrassing". lol Yeah I know how horribly homophobic of me........

 

[sataris]

This thread is exactly what the float was supposed to acheive.

A discussion.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

As for the topic of whether we should or shouldn't participate in a Mardi Gras float I take the view that any exposure and market penetration are good for the swans. The Mardi Gras is a Sydney incarnation so it suits I guess.

I do apologise for using the words 'exposure' and 'penetration' in this context but what can I say.........I'm mischievous.

 

[RW]

Don't mean to sound pedantic, and whether it's Sat or Sunday given your Christian beliefs, does that mean anyone who works on the sabbath, ie footy players, coaches, security, pie sellers, bar staff etc are breaking a holy commandment and therefore dammed to hell for eternity, that is unless they recant their sins of working on the sabbath, before they die? You know, because you can't just pick and choose which bits to adhere to in the bible.

The answer to that may surprise you, but it would be way, way off topic and definitely beyond the scope of a footy board.

 

[BarneyBent]

Laws are another thing entirely and certainly access to equality under law is a given. That shouldn't mean the concept of marriage is bastardised to achieve it. Lots of ways equality can be preserved short of messing with the historical tradition of marriage.

As for your slight in calling me a Bigot I will allow latitude because you are passionate about YOUR needs. That latitude is a once only concession. Don't press me.

"A bigot is defined to be someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

My opinion explained is different from yours. I understand your view and your right to it but respectively disagree. I don't hate homosexuals because they are. Quite the contrary I'm quite ashamed of homophobia and homophobic persecution that has historically persisted, but is changing. I fully endorse any configuration of relationship where there is love: gay, lesbian or hetero. My partners son is gay and I have a great relationship with him to the point of him saying I'm more like a dad to him than his own dad was/is. Seems pretty tolerant to me.

Gays as a minority and like all minorities have an urgent need for validation because of the persecution they've experienced. Historical and societal influence. They see a change to marriage laws as an avenue for that validation. I'm sympathetic to that because living a life as a minority can't be easy. I'm not that sympathetic I feel the need to change my opinion around marriage. There is real danger that passionate belief in ideals important to you to the point of intimidation and vitriol is demonstrably intolerant. I'll let others judge who fits the definition.

Why would letting men marry men and women marry women be a bastardisation? Why is it a bad thing? What are you trying to protect marriage from?

Answer that without implying homosexuality is bad. Give it a go.

 

[sataris]

historical tradition of marriage

The historical tradition of marriage is that the 'tradition' is always changing.

Polygamy,
Child Marriages,
Divorce

These are aspects of the historical tradition of marriage, that seem to have been deemed not 'traditional' enough to maintain in the 21st century.

Not just related to this topic, but 'tradition' is not an argument.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Why would letting men marry men and women marry women be a bastardisation? Why is it a bad thing? What are you trying to protect marriage from?

Answer that without implying homosexuality is bad. Give it a go.

I've already explained it previously on this thread. I suggest you read my comment there for elaboration short answer follows.

Marriage is a tradition which derives for a man and woman together for the specific purpose of conception and procreation. That's how it evolved throughout history. Men and women are genetically designed to procreate NOT men with men or women with women. That is fact. Therefore any deviation from that as occurs because gays and lesbians exist occur as an abberation in genetic design. Nothing wrong because it takes all genetic variations to make up the world but that's truth of it.

But why can't others who love each (men/men or woman/woman) other qualify? Well because no matter how long you have sex a baby will never be produced. So to answer the question in the way you framed it yes it's because of homosexuality ......unapologetically. Very happy for anyone loving a partner but in my view according to my values around the marriage tradition and why it arose .....homosexuals simply don't qualify and never will.

An exclusive club limited to man and woman couples. Yes I'm sorry it is in my view or should be. I'd love to be an Olympian but I didn't qualify so I'm not. Same thing. It's not fair? Heaps of exclusive clubs where people never qualify. For instance, apart from being hugely disrespectful id love to be able for convenience sake to park in a handicapped car space. Guess what I don't qualify because I don't meet the perquisites. Should I complain and politicise it saying it discriminates against able bodied people? Nah I'll pass because it occurs for a reason ie allow people who are handicapped easier ways to get around. Marriage occurred for a reason too - to indoctrinate a system around traditions for a man and woman culminating in procreation. A way to signify that bond for that ultimate purpose.

Homosexuals would love to make it about discrimination of a minority and the lobby was successful in that regard. "How can they be discriminated against in that way anymore when they love identically to a hetero couple". So congratulations it's changed. But my answer to that question is and will always be .....because they don't qualify. No babies!

There is a trend nowadays for political correctness to run rampant causing the pendulum to swing the opposite direction beyond all realms of simple equality which was it's justified original goal. An opinion like mine derived other than from discrimation can't be honestly held without me being labelled a bigot or discriminatory against gays. I'm not. Really I'm not. Live and let live I say. IMO the concept of marriage is now bastardised. I have to accept it because it's the law and in all honesty it doesn't directly affect me so it won't be hard but I think it's wrong all the same.

Id love input of other heterosexuals who voted yes to comment but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant element in that decision was concern over being 'seen' as discrimatory......wanting to be seen as progressive abd enlightened rather than on the merits around the concept of marriage itself.

 

[mtooler]

Laws are another thing entirely and certainly access to equality under law is a given. That shouldn't mean the concept of marriage is bastardised to achieve it. Lots of ways equality can be preserved short of messing with the historical tradition of marriage.

As for your slight in calling me a Bigot I will allow latitude because you are passionate about YOUR needs. That latitude is a once only concession. Don't press me.

"A bigot is defined to be someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

My opinion explained is different from yours. I understand your view and your right to it but respectively disagree. I don't hate homosexuals because they are. Quite the contrary I'm quite ashamed of homophobia and homophobic persecution that has historically persisted, but is changing. I fully endorse any configuration of relationship where there is love: gay, lesbian or hetero. My partners son is gay and I have a great relationship with him to the point of him saying I'm more like a dad to him than his own dad was/is. Seems pretty tolerant to me.

Gays as a minority and like all minorities have an urgent need for validation because of the persecution they've experienced. Historical and societal influence. They see a change to marriage laws as an avenue for that validation. I'm sympathetic to that because living a life as a minority can't be easy. I'm not that sympathetic I feel the need to change my opinion around marriage. There is real danger that passionate belief in ideals important to you to the point of intimidation and vitriol is demonstrably intolerant. I'll let others judge who fits the definition.

I agree with your sentiments and invariably the irony is that people that keep acussing others of bigotry are indeed practicing bigots themselves because, as you correctly point out, they are intolerant of others religious beliefs or beliefs that differ to their own.

 

[mtooler]

The historical tradition of marriage is that the 'tradition' is always changing.

Polygamy,
Child Marriages,
Divorce

These are aspects of the historical tradition of marriage, that seem to have been deemed not 'traditional' enough to maintain in the 21st century.

Not just related to this topic, but 'tradition' is not an argument.

Maybe to some, tradition in jeudeo/christian faith was outlined in Genesis at creation of the world and was represented in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). No change.

 

[mtooler]

The answer to that may surprise you, but it would be way, way off topic and definitely beyond the scope of a footy board.

Yeah replied via pm about what the Sabbath actually is as Jesus addressed it and why he addressed it the way he did.

 

[sataris]

Maybe to some, tradition in jeudeo/christian faith was outlined in Genesis at creation of the world and was represented in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). No change.

Polygamy, child marriages and marrying your rapist are all good then and enshrined in that law?

 

[mtooler]

Polygamy, child marriages and marrying your rapist are all good then and enshrined in that law?

Quote the scriptures and lets talk context and unpack them if you like. They were not part of God's plan when marriage was created in Genesis before sin entered the world. Man and a woman leaves their families and join together and the two will become one flesh. Wheres the polygamy, rape and pedophiles there?