Crows Chat That 'Doesnt Deserve Its Own Thread' Thread part 2

[Mego Red]

Isn't the issue that people's views are always going to be different and someone could always take offence.

We could turn this around - if we partner an organisation that supports gay marriage are we at risk of offending our devout Christian supporters or players who oppose gay marriage.

Isn't the higher road to say, hey we might not agree on everything but we do agree that kids in poverty need help so let's work together on that?

The progressive and elite left have developed and nurtured a culture of offence and narrowed democratic features such as freedom of speech and thought.

If people just worked a bit harder on finding things they agree on, they may find barriers on what they don't agree on are far more easily overcome .

The thing is - you CAN'T turn it around.

The club either has values or it doesn't.

If it has values, it either considers them important or they are compromisable.

If they have values and don't want to compromise themselves, they can only partner with others with shared values.

You can't just say "look, they believe in banning all Muslims, but other than that they're good sorts."

You don't say "ah, we'll not really stand for anything, because everything offends someone." You stand for what you believe in.

Of course - the Crows may feel the Salvos DO match their values, which is fine.

 

[Tex200]

There are millions of poor, homeless, parent less and at risk children in the world and the notion that a gay couple should not be able to adopt one of them and give them a safe loving environment is really quite absurd

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

It isn't a lifestyle issue. Being a hipster is a lifestyle issue.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Hipsters shouldn't be able to raise kids.

 

[DangerSloane]

You are criticising the world for being 'too PC' and yet you are proposing that all opinions should be treated equally. Isn't that being a bit PC yourself?



No, and I've never claimed otherwise.

Ah see this is just stupid.
People having an opinion is not PC.
PC is when you mute peoples opinions because they dont conform with yours, or society's general set of moral standards (which by the way are changing by the day).

I dont like Pauline Hanson, but she has the right to make the points she does, the same as the other side can rant and rave about letting in every single immigrant that wants to come here.

 

[GreyCrow]

Or maybe we should be wanting the club to be all things to all people. I love going to the games and seeing the diverse nature of our supporters. Be a pretty dull affair if we were all of the same mind and the club fit our values/expectations to a T.

To cherry pick my support of the AFC over who a sponsor is is laughable

 

[Niximus]

Or maybe we should be wanting the club to be all things to all people. I love going to the games and seeing the diverse nature of our supporters. Be a pretty dull affair if we were all of the same mind and the club fit our values/expectations to a T.

Do we need some fans that hurl ape insults over the fence to really kick up the diversity? It's just boring if we all agree that racism is wrong, right?

To cherry pick my support of the AFC over who a sponsor is is laughable

Nobody is suggesting this.

 

[Niximus]

Ah see this is just stupid.
People having an opinion is not PC.
PC is when you mute peoples opinions because they dont conform with yours, or society's general set of moral standards (which by the way are changing by the day).

I dont like Pauline Hanson, but she has the right to make the points she does, the same as the other side can rant and rave about letting in every single immigrant that wants to come here.

Nobody is proposing disallowing the Salvos from having their oh so important opinion. Nobody is muting them.

They are more than free to spout any nonsense they want, and we're free to express disappointment that the club would associate with them.

 

[GreyCrow]

Do we need some fans that hurl ape insults over the fence to really kick up the diversity? It's just boring if we all agree that racism is wrong, right?

Where in the world did this come from. Please don't ever be so stupid as to paint me in a light that my posting hasn't ever shown.

Nobody is suggesting this.

You said you drafted a letter over the Salvation Army issue. That tells me you had enough intent and concern over this partnership.

 

[Tex200]

Nobody is proposing disallowing the Salvos from having their oh so important opinion. Nobody is muting them.

They are more than free to spout any nonsense they want, and we're free to express disappointment that the club would associate with them.

No doubt everyone is free to have their say, it's the backlash that follows which is the issue, and those who preach tolerance are generally the most intolerant of all.

The problem for the progressives is that they have been so aggressive is pushing various agenda's, that what we are now seeing are adverse political reactions ie the rise of Hanson, Trump, Brexit and a plethora of politically incorrect parties across Europe.

 

[Niximus]

No doubt everyone is free to have their say, it's the backlash that follows which is the issue, and those who preach tolerance are generally the most intolerant of all.

The problem for the progressives is that they have been so aggressive is pushing various agenda's, that what we are now seeing are adverse political reactions ie the rise of Hanson, Trump, Brexit and a plethora of politically incorrect parties across Europe.

I can't recall ever 'preaching' unrestricted tolerance.

I'm intolerant of a lot of things, violence, racism, homophobia, child abuse. It's ludicrous to suggest that because I advocate for the rights of people just going about their lives, I should also be tolerant of those who want to harm or discriminate against them.

 

[beartoo]

Where did you get the information you quoted, Niximus? What follows comes from 'The Salvation Army, Ethics overview' and doesn't seem extreme for a religious organisation. Note that non-practicing homosexuals are accepted as members of the organisation.

Homosexuality
The Salvation Army believes that homosexual Christians must live celibate lives, since the Bible forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Army does not accept same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage. The Salvation Army opposes any discrimination against homosexuals, and accepts as members homosexuals who will abide by the principle that sexual intimacy is only acceptable within marriage. Homosexual practices unrenounced render a person unacceptable as a Salvation Army soldier, in the same way as heterosexual acts of immorality

 

[Niximus]

Where in the world did this come from. Please don't ever be so stupid as to paint me in a light that my posting hasn't ever shown.

Right, so there's an issue where you'd draw the line. You wouldn't want people with racist views like that associated with the club, and you find the suggestion that it adds to the diversity absurd.

That's how I feel reading the same sort of posts about the Salvos.

You said you drafted a letter over the Salvation Army issue. That tells me you had enough intent and concern over this partnership.

Sure, at no point did I suggest threatening to withdraw my support of the club. You can make your feeling known on an issue without issuing an ultimatum.

 

[Niximus]

Where did you get the information you quoted, Niximus? What follows comes from 'The Salvation Army, Ethics overview' and doesn't seem extreme for a religious organisation. Note that non-practicing homosexuals are accepted as members of the organisation.

Homosexuality
The Salvation Army believes that homosexual Christians must live celibate lives, since the Bible forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Army does not accept same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage. The Salvation Army opposes any discrimination against homosexuals, and accepts as members homosexuals who will abide by the principle that sexual intimacy is only acceptable within marriage. Homosexual practices unrenounced render a person unacceptable as a Salvation Army soldier, in the same way as heterosexual acts of immorality

I linked it earlier

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/...l-Statements/Positional-Statements/MARRIAGE-/

"In the face of open acceptance of alternative lifestyles, The Salvation Army affirms its absolute conviction that the marriage of one man to one woman is a sacred institution ordained by God. It is one of the most rewarding of life's decisions for any man or woman, providing the optimal conditions for family life."

It's a similar tone to your quote, essentially saying that anything other than a heterosexual relationship is inferior. As I said before, replace that with anything other than a same-race relationship is inferior and you'll see why it's a horrible position.

It isn't extreme for a religious organisation, you're right, but what is and is not extreme for a religious organisation, is not how I measure what is appropriate for a football club.

That women should cover their hair is far from an extreme view for a religious organisation, but I wouldn't want the club being involved with that.

 

[beartoo]

I linked it earlier

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/...l-Statements/Positional-Statements/MARRIAGE-/

"In the face of open acceptance of alternative lifestyles, The Salvation Army affirms its absolute conviction that the marriage of one man to one woman is a sacred institution ordained by God. It is one of the most rewarding of life's decisions for any man or woman, providing the optimal conditions for family life."

It's a similar tone to your quote, essentially saying that anything other than a heterosexual relationship is inferior. As I said before, replace that with anything other than a same-race relationship is inferior and you'll see why it's a horrible position.

It isn't extreme for a religious organisation, you're right, but what is and is not extreme for a religious organisation, is not how I measure what is appropriate for a football club.

That women should cover their hair is far from an extreme view for a religious organisation, but I wouldn't want the club being involved with that.

Thanks, I didn't see that earlier link.
I still can't understand why you oppose the club accepting the SA collecting clothes for disadvantaged kids. The views expressed in the link you appended are not extreme views. I'm not a religious person, so it's hard for me to make judgements on what Christians might or might not think, but I believe these tenets would be accepted by most of Christian belief.
If you are offended by these views, and I'm right in my suggestion that other Christians would follow these tenets, does it not follow that you would ban Christians from becoming members of the club?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Did anyone else know what the Salvo's view on same sex marriage was before this discussion?

 

[Niximus]

Thanks, I didn't see that earlier link.
I still can't understand why you oppose the club accepting the SA collecting clothes for disadvantaged kids. The views expressed in the link you appended are not extreme views. I'm not a religious person, so it's hard for me to make judgements on what Christians might or might not think, but I believe these tenets would be accepted by most of Christian belief.
If you are offended by these views, and I'm right in my suggestion that other Christians would follow these tenets, does it not follow that you would ban Christians from becoming members of the club?

I don't oppose the club collecting clothing for disadvantaged kids, I think it is fantastic. I'm disappointed that they're doing it with an organisation that considers the loving relationships of a number of our supporters as second rate.

As I've already said, the AFL and the 18 clubs have taken a position on a number of issues, for example domestic violence, and homophobia. We've had clubs wearing 'pride' guernsey designs. The AFL is clear in its position, it wants to be welcoming to fans of all sexualities.

The Salvos position is the opposite of that. They are literally saying they don't see a gay relationship as equal to a straight one. That is not welcoming at all. It's fine for them to have those views, even if I disagree with them, but partnering with them is not a good look when you're trying to make progress in that area.

Of course I wouldn't ban people from being members of the club, whatever their beliefs, but I wouldn't expect the club to be endorsing them. We sacked a guy at the mere accusation he'd made racist remarks.

If an Adelaide supporter was caught shouting ape insults at indigenous players, would you want the club to revoke their membership?

 

[Tex200]

I can't recall ever 'preaching' unrestricted tolerance.

I'm intolerant of a lot of things, violence, racism, homophobia, child abuse. It's ludicrous to suggest that because I advocate for the rights of people just going about their lives, I should also be tolerant of those who want to harm or discriminate against them.

The issue with progressives is there are no shades of grey. You either agree will all that we believe or you're a racist, a homophobe, a mysoginist, or an Islamaphobe.

Most people are complex and dont wish to be pilloried for their opinions which can vary.

I don't support gay marriage, I do support gay civil union, creation of gay families, and that gay people be otherwise not discriminated against. Does that make me homophobic?

I don't support illegal immigration, I do support legal immigration, support for immigrants and I do support a multicultural Australiia. Does that make me racist ?

I support freedom of religion, I don't support any aspect of any religion that is inconsistent with our laws or values - does that make me an Islamaphobe?

I'm sure there are many who aren't absolute in their thinking.

 

[Niximus]

I don't support gay marriage, I do support gay civil union, creation of gay families, and that gay people be otherwise not discriminated against. Does that make me homophobic?

'Separate but equal' has never worked out well as a policy.

Not to mention, logistically that's a nightmare.

For that suggestion, ignoring my personal opinion that it's just "your relationship isn't as good as mine" in another wrapper, to implement that you'd need to:

Run parallel legislation to the Marriage Act, that duplicates all aspects of a marriage under the law. Separate provisions for divorce, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.
Ensure that you update all other legislation that references a marriage so that it also applies to a civil union.
Similarly you have the issue of any case law that references a marriage. Try and reference a precedent involving a marriage when you're in a civil union, suddenly they aren't bound by the precedent because specific wording is important in law.

or

We can make a small change to the Marriage Act removing the specification that the people be of opposite genders. Everything else remains the same.

The only way a civil union is a reasonable suggestion, is if we're talking of getting rid of the marriage act completely, and having the Government only deal in civil unions. Then everyone gets a civil union, and if you want to also have a marriage ceremony, go for it, but the law doesn't care.

 

[Pdub]

The issue with progressives is there are no shades of grey. You either agree will all that we believe or you're a racist, a homophobe, a mysoginist, or an Islamaphobe.

Most people are complex and dont wish to be pilloried for their opinions which can vary.

Your second paragraph disputes your first. You group a bunch of people as having one belief and then talk about how you can't group people into having one belief.

It seems people don't like to be told they are part of a group and everyone in that group is like "this" and thinks "that". But everybody loves putting other people in a group and saying everyone in that group is like "this" and thinks "that".

 

[Tex200]

'Separate but equal' has never worked out well as a policy.

Not to mention, logistically that's a nightmare.

For that suggestion, ignoring my personal opinion that it's just "your relationship isn't as good as mine" in another wrapper, to implement that you'd need to:

Run parallel legislation to the Marriage Act, that duplicates all aspects of a marriage under the law. Separate provisions for divorce, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.
Ensure that you update all other legislation that references a marriage so that it also applies to a civil union.
Similarly you have the issue of any case law that references a marriage. Try and reference a precedent involving a marriage when you're in a civil union, suddenly they aren't bound by the precedent because specific wording is important in law.

or

We can make a small change to the Marriage Act removing the specification that the people be of opposite genders. Everything else remains the same.

The only way a civil union is a reasonable suggestion, is if we're talking of getting rid of the marriage act completely, and having the Government only deal in civil unions. Then everyone gets a civil union, and if you want to also have a marriage ceremony, go for it, but the law doesn't care.

We already run seperate legislation with the various state de facto relationships acts.

The other issue that I know religious groups are very concerned about is that if the law is changed, the first thing a militant gay couple will do is ask say, a catholic priest to marry them. If they are refused then the inevitable discrimination claim comes.

 

[Tex200]

Your second sentence disputes your first. You group a bunch of people as having one belief and then talk about how you can't group people into having one belief.

Sorry I'm not seeing your point.

My first sentence says there are no shades of gray with progressives.

My second sentence expands that with examples. Either agree with progressive thought or be labelled - no shades of gray

 

[Pdub]

We already run seperate legislation with the various state de facto relationships acts.

The other issue that I know religious groups are very concerned about is that if the law is changed, the first thing a militant gay couple will do is ask say, a catholic priest to marry them. If they are refused then the inevitable discrimination claim comes.

sorry paragraph not sentence.

 

[beartoo]

I don't oppose the club collecting clothing for disadvantaged kids, I think it is fantastic. I'm disappointed that they're doing it with an organisation that considers the loving relationships of a number of our supporters as second rate.

As I've already said, the AFL and the 18 clubs have taken a position on a number of issues, for example domestic violence, and homophobia. We've had clubs wearing 'pride' guernsey designs. The AFL is clear in its position, it wants to be welcoming to fans of all sexualities.

The Salvos position is the opposite of that. They are literally saying they don't see a gay relationship as equal to a straight one. That is not welcoming at all. It's fine for them to have those views, even if I disagree with them, but partnering with them is not a good look when you're trying to make progress in that area.

Of course I wouldn't ban people from being members of the club, whatever their beliefs, but I wouldn't expect the club to be endorsing them. We sacked a guy at the mere accusation he'd made racist remarks.

If an Adelaide supporter was caught shouting ape insults at indigenous players, would you want the club to revoke their membership?

They are not alone in this viewpoint among Christians, people of other religious beliefs and people that profess no religion in holding that view. If the club was to implement your policy of having nothing to do with people that profess certain things, we would restrict our associations with other organisations. How far do you take this? If the CEO of Toyota expressed the view that gay marriage was not equal to straight marriage, should we drop Toyota as a sponsor? Or is only if the organisation has this in its constitution?

 

[Niximus]

We already run seperate legislation with the various state de facto relationships acts.

The other issue that I know religious groups are very concerned about is that if the law is changed, the first thing a militant gay couple will do is ask say, a catholic priest to marry them. If they are refused then the inevitable discrimination claim comes.

It's a concern that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Rest assured, religion's ability to discriminate against gays, women and whoever they want will not be affected by same-sex marriage.

Are you worried that a catholic priest would be forced to perform my non-religious wedding because I, as an atheist can legally be married?

 

[Niximus]

They are not alone in this viewpoint among Christians, people of other religious beliefs and people that profess no religion in holding that view. If the club was to implement your policy of having nothing to do with people that profess certain things, we would restrict our associations with other organisations. How far do you take this? If the CEO of Toyota expressed the view that gay marriage was not equal to straight marriage, should we drop Toyota as a sponsor? Or is only if the organisation has this in its constitution?

In a scenario where the CEO of Toyota issued such a public statement, I'd imagine Toyota the company would be quick to issue their own statement distancing themselves from it.

I would consider that the views of an individual. This is not the equivalent of the Salvos. If Toyota as a company released their own position statement that they officially consider straight relationships superior to non-straight relationships then yes, I would be disappointed if we retained an association with them.