Roast If You Don't Stand For Something...

[Ochre]

Wtf does footy have to do with gay marriage ? Just like gambling , drinking and recreational drugs what players do in the personal lives is their own business .

OP is being a typical outraged lefty and blowing s**t out of proportion .

I would much rather keep my football and politics seperate

Clubs' have a huge following and a huge influence because of that. Do you think with that comes a responsibility to do good with it?

 

[Ochre]

This is where bigfooty's swear filter has its drawback.

I blame that campaigner Chief.

 

[QS]

I blame that campaigner Chief.

I thought you could only campaign for yes or no, was there a Chief, the most stable genius, option?

 

[Jootube]

 

[Ochre]

Godwce's Law: Every argument on the WCE board will eventually lead to a Simpson's reference.

 

[squashface]

How about anyone trying to push a political agenda rather than discussing football ****s off somewhere else.

For me it's not a political issue, or it shouldn't be. It should be a general care for the wellbeing of other human beings, and as a popular community club, I feel that the West Coast has a responsibility in regards to that.

But we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Dugg]

Clubs' have a huge following and a huge influence because of that. Do you think with that comes a responsibility to do good with it?

I think you just explained the situation though right? Some or all of the below probably apply.

1. People at the club support the "no" vote.
2. People at the club believe their influence shouldn't be used to sway people's opinions.
3. The club is afraid of the backlash from people who support the "no" vote.

I don't mind the club deciding not to take a stance in this situation as I believe it should be up to each individual to form their own opinion. Given that the club is formed of many individuals, that more than likely have differing opinions, who's view would the club really be representing either way?

For the record, I voted Yes.

 

[Javelin]

Do you think the abuse LGBT people suffer and the abuse no campaigners suffer is equal and/or has an equal effect on them emotionally and mentally?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but that depends entirely on the individual being abused. Some people will not be affected, while others will take things to heart and suffer internally.

The beautiful thing about this planet is that we are all individuals. There are literally 7 billion people, and no two are exactly alike.
You see the Eagles stance (or lack thereof) to be a sign of a weak underbelly, a missed opportunity, and possibly letting down the LGBT community. I see it as a smart corporate decision, distancing themselves from the current political landscape and not ostracising anyone.

I can tell from your comments, and the fact you started this thread in the first place, that you are passionate about supporting the LGBT community. And that's a good thing; we should all be passionate about something. But I don't think this is the right place for you to be passionate. Your words will likely fall on deaf ears, or worse, result in a flame war. And I'm sure you'll agree that your efforts could be better spent elsewhere, where it will have a greater impact.

Just my two cents, and I hope you don't take any offence by what I've said. I know the written word can be easily misinterpreted, as I do it all the time.

 

[WCErevival]

 

[QS]

I think you just explained the situation though right? Some or all of the below probably apply.

1. People at the club support the "no" vote.
2. People at the club believe their influence shouldn't be used to sway people's opinions.
3. The club is afraid of the backlash from people who support the "no" vote.

I don't mind the club deciding not to take a stance in this situation as I believe it should be up to each individual to form their own opinion. Given that the club is formed of many individuals, that more than likely have differing opinions, who's view would the club really be representing either way?

For the record, I voted Yes.

So you think the club might have dugg themselves a hole if they supported it?

 

[Jafa]

Rubbish. It's cowardice. Too scared of offending anyone to say anything helpful.

Or perhaps they are simply not buying into the virtue signalling bullshit that "half" the other clubs seem to be.

 

[Hangover Noir]

Nope but bagging the club for not going for it is stupid. The easy thing would be to buckle at the knees and say yes

Liked for "buckle at the knees" analogy!

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Just cant understand why anyone would vote no to be honest. I could just never bring myself to do something that has such a large negative affect on so many people.

Why should anyone be so unhappy about not having the right to do something that I have the right to do myself?

People can do something that is so simple and that has no physical affect on them that will make so many people happy and they choose not to

Just seems logically unfair

I'm in disbelief really

 

[ChampRevesby]

The only valid (and I say valid with a very large pinch of salt) reason for voting no would be a religious or cultural or personal belief. If we respect and uphold those in other areas of society (e.g. sikh temples, mosques etc etc) then it should be respected on this issue. Inherent in a belief is a sense of that is what is right, therefore because most others think it is wrong, doesn't make it so for that person. They shouldn't be vilified for it for that in itself is bigotry. FWIW both sides have been bigoted. I voted the way I did because I did what I think was right not because of any external factors.

I don't think the state should be involved with marriage at all because as soon as SSM is on par with traditional marriage then the government has a mandate to force churches, businesses even individuals in recognizing SSM which contravenes other peoples basics right to religious freedom and freedom of association. As long as there are provisions to protect these fundamental rights (no matter how abhorrent people find their views) then SSM should and must be legal. Just get the government out of the business of marriage because they screw everything up.

I vote YES BTW

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I don't think the state should be involved with marriage at all because as soon as SSM is on par with traditional marriage then the government has a mandate to force churches, businesses even individuals in recognizing SSM which contravenes other peoples basics right to religious freedom and freedom of association. As long as there are provisions to protect these fundamental rights (no matter how abhorrent people find their views) then SSM should and must be legal. Just get the government out of the business of marriage because they screw everything up.

I vote YES BTW

At the end of the day marriage is a legal relationship, and the government makes the laws. So they're not going to be able to just wash their hands of the whole debate. As much as they seem to want to.

 

[bh90210fan]

For me it's not a political issue, or it shouldn't be. It should be a general care for the wellbeing of other human beings, and as a popular community club, I feel that the West Coast has a responsibility in regards to that.

But we are all entitled to our opinions.

Yes that's what the vote means to you and that's fine, but for a lot of no voters that's not how they see it. Everyone has their own reasons for voting the way they do and just because someone votes no doesn't mean they encourage violence or bullying against gay people. As you said we're all entitled to our opinions so why should West Coast have to speak for everyone

 

[Boohemian]

By your daft logic we should allow people to do anything they want in society (fill in the blank) and just simply support it. You just keep your nose out of other people's lives. You might support it but I don't. You might support it but the club doesn't so stop Imposing your ideals on others

You are literally imposing your ideals on others, and condemning others for doing the same in the same breath.

 

[Mattman93]

Because you asked me I will tell you. Because I believe being LGBT etc etc is morally wrong. How does a random murder on the news affect you? How about tax evasion? Doesn't affect you directly so why does it bother you? This will make you angry but to me it's all the same thing. It all morally wrong. I don't hate these people. I don't bully these people. I just dont support them and will voice what I believe is morally correct. I know plenty of gay people that actively fight against that weakness they have because they believe it's wrong too and they vote no. People with my beliefs get a lot of hate but that's just how it is

Are we going to let this go unchecked? Shouldn't have to read this kind of drivel on here.

It's so horrific that I'm not even sure you're serious.

Disappointing from the club too.

 

[ChampRevesby]

At the end of the day marriage is a legal relationship, and the government makes the laws. So they're not going to be able to just wash their hands of the whole debate. As much as they seem to want to.

Marriage is basically a legal contract which can be dealt with in the court system. That's the only thing SSM couples are missing at the moment in Australia, a legally binding contract between 2 people when dispute or estate issues arise. The burden of proof for de-facos is far too high at the moment, so I am all for that recognition. The government should just recognize this from legal standpoint and stay out of everything else. If they want to strong arm people which Shorten and his crew are intimating then there might be some problems down the road.

 

[liam123]

You didn't answer the question. Nobody has answered that question yet.

Take two.
Do you think the abuse LGBT people suffer and the abuse no campaigners suffer is equal and/or has an equal effect on them emotionally and mentally?

Do you think people who do crimes are more affected by unlawful violence from police than those who don't? Abuse shouldn't be tolerated. The actions in the first place should not come about either. These people need help for sure. I cannot support their actions though

 

[Ochre]

Everyone has their own reasons for voting the way they do and just because someone votes no doesn't mean they encourage violence or bullying against gay people.

See the problem is that our actions have consequences beyond our control. I absolutey believe that you don't wish to encourage those things, but the consequence of a no result would be a huge encouragement to those who do wish for those things, so even if that's not your intention or your wish, those things still result from a no outcome.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Marriage is basically a legal contract which can be dealt with in the court system. That's the only thing SSM couples are missing at the moment is a legally binding contract between 2 people when dispute or estate issues arise. The burden of proof for de-facos is far too high at the moment, so I am all for that recognition. The government should just recognize this from legal standpoint and stay out of everything else.

That's literally all they're proposing to do.

 

[Ochre]

That's literally all they're proposing to do.

Nice pun.

 

[La Dolce Vita]

Lol this thread

 

[liam123]

holy s**t, you just compared homosexuality with ******* murder.


FYI whats all ways morally wrong isn't always illegal. You don't go to jail for being gay but you do go to jail for murder.

Hating somebody isn't illegal either. And yet it's the same thing as murder. I don't accept hatred of any kind (although I fall short of this myself at times).