Moved Thread Kevin Sheedy calls on football to embrace sexual equality

[The_Ru]

- higher divorce rates
- higher jobless rates
- both parents working = negligent parenting (the main one, which has all sorts of flow-on effects)

Yeah, all people are equal (though it's becoming more common for certain groups to be given special treatment). That has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman; any other relationship is excluded. It's like the MCC; if you don't qualify for membership, you can't be admitted.

Call it something else with exactly the same status and I wouldn't be opposed.

None of your examples are the consequence of gender equality or supported by the facts. For example, in 1979 40% of women were employed. Now it is 59%. In 1979 the unemployment rate was 6%. Now it is 5.7%. Clearly women in work does not cause high unemployment.

Your assertion of "negligent parenting" is entirely at odds with the objective reality of modern society. You are entitled to be conservative in your views but this doesn't grant entitlement to ignore fact.

Marriage in Australia is only currently defined to be between a man and a woman to specifically exclude same-sex couples and this is a recent development. So your MCC example is akin to saying "You were eligible to join the MCC but we changed the rules to make sure you can't because we don't like you". I'm sorry, but that's not reflective of the type of society most Australians want to live in.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Mercury died miserable and that means homosexuality is bad?

Because heterosexuals have never died miserably or written about it?

Why can't you just say you dislike gays because they're gay? You keep giving weird reasons to justify it, like you're some martyr. "I don't like gays because it's bad for them"

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I'm not about to detail every single experience that contributed to forming my opinions, even if I could remember them all. I don't approve because I believe it's unwholesome, and statistics support that view.

And yeah, I do have some sympathy for people predisposed to that lifestyle. I remember a manager at a past job attending a work-organised family function with what was clearly her lesbian partner, and the shocked reactions of other employees. I was also slightly shocked. She was a good operator and I sometimes wondered whether her departure soon after was sadly related to the reactions at the function.

However in attempting to gatecrash an institution that is a cornerstone of civilisation, you are trying to force people to accept you, to bestow legitimacy upon your lifestyle. It doesn't work that way.

 

[DemonTim]

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I'm not about to detail every single experience that contributed to forming my opinions, even if I could remember them all. I don't approve because I believe it's unwholesome, and statistics support that view.

And yeah, I do have some sympathy for people predisposed to that lifestyle. I remember a manager at a past job attending a work-organised family function with what was clearly her lesbian partner, and the shocked reactions of other employees. I was also slightly shocked. She was a good operator and I sometimes wondered whether her departure soon after was sadly related to the reactions at the function.

However in attempting to gatecrash an institution that is a cornerstone of civilisation in search of legitimacy, you are trying to force people to accept you, to grant legitimacy upon your lifestyle. It doesn't work that way.

Statistics support its unwholesome? Straight males are more likely to inflict violence on other males. Murder is more likely to be committed by straight males, prison populations etc etc etc. if you're going to tarnish gays because "stats" you might want to rethink it.

Lol at gatecrash an institution. Christianity stole it and claimed it was their creation.

You seem very sexually repressed

 

[Ron The Bear]

None of your examples are the consequence of gender equality or supported by the facts. For example, in 1979 40% of women were employed. Now it is 59%. In 1979 the unemployment rate was 6%. Now it is 5.7%. Clearly women in work does not cause high unemployment.

Your assertion of "negligent parenting" is entirely at odds with the objective reality of modern society. You are entitled to be conservative in your views but this doesn't grant entitlement to ignore fact.

Marriage in Australia is only currently defined to be between a man and a woman to specifically exclude same-sex couples and this is a recent development. So your MCC example is akin to saying "You were eligible to join the MCC but we changed the rules to make sure you can't because we don't like you". I'm sorry, but that's not reflective of the type of society most Australians want to live in.

The women's liberation movement began in the late 60's. I know because my mother was on board. Suggest you look at the jobless rate then.

http://www.economist.com/node/15174418

The MCC rules existed before you or I were born. Yeah you're free to try to get them changed, but don't spit the dummy if you don't get your way.

 

[cartwright]

Good luck to you. When you've sold it to half the population, they'll be prepared to vote it in. But dodging a vote for fear that people will raise negative aspects of homosexual lifestyles for discussion isn't convincing anyone.

There won't be a vote, not by the general public.

Rational people don't need to be convinced.
Those who believe in equality, aren't interested in swaying the bigots.

AMA now adding their voice.
Corporate Australia has.

You will lose. It's just a matter of time.

 

[The_Ru]

The women's liberation movement began in the late 60's. I know because my mother was on board. Suggest you look at the jobless rate then.

http://www.economist.com/node/15174418

The MCC rules existed before you or I were born. Yeah you're free to try to get them changed, but don't spit the dummy if you don't get your way.

You've completely misunderstood my points.

The jobless rate changes from month-to-month and year-to-year. In 1968 the female participation rate was 42% but the unemployment rate was around 2%. The spike in women entering the workforce occurred before this. Further evidence that it's not gender equality driving unemployment rates in Australia. Thank you for illustrating my point.

The point about the MCC was that the Australian Government did change the rules very recently. Before that, the marriage law made no distinction on gender.

 

[Ron The Bear]

There won't be a vote, not by the general public.

Rational people don't need to be convinced.
Those who believe in equality, aren't interested in swaying the bigots.

AMA now adding their voice.
Corporate Australia has.

You will lose. It's just a matter of time.

I'm resigned to the fact it'll get in one day, same as the republic.

Your choice of words provides an insight. For you to get what you want, others must lose. It's the militancy of the movement that puts many offside.

We win, you lose. Are you Chinese?

 

[Ron The Bear]

You've completely misunderstood my points.

The jobless rate changes from month-to-month and year-to-year. In 1968 the female participation rate was 42% but the unemployment rate was around 2%. The spike in women entering the workforce occurred before this. Further evidence that it's not gender equality driving unemployment rates in Australia. Thank you for illustrating my point.

The point about the MCC was that the Australian Government did change the rules very recently. Before that, the marriage law made no distinction on gender.

In the 1960's, women in government jobs were expected to retire if they fell pregnant. Career over. Now their jobs are preserved while they decide when to return. And everyone pays for their maternity leave.

The last sentence in the article I linked to (which is pro-women): "The West will be struggling to cope with the social consequences of women's economic empowerment for many years to come."

Howard's tweak merely enshrined the accepted definition in law.

 

[The_Ru]

In the 1960's, women in government jobs were expected to retire if they fell pregnant. Career over. Now their jobs are preserved while they decide when to return. And everyone pays for their maternity leave.

The last sentence in the article I linked to (which is pro-women): "The West will be struggling to cope with the social consequences of women's economic empowerment for many years to come."

Howard's tweak merely enshrined the accepted definition in law.

I think the Economist article is interesting but its central contention is that the problem with gender equality is that it hasn't yet been possible to ensure full equality. This is in direct contradiction of what you're suggesting it says.

My point stands. You can't say marriage has "always" been about men and women because it was legal under Australian law until Howard changed it.

 

[Chief]

I can and you know it. HR departments are leftist by nature;

Ok now you're just being hysterical.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

No surprise that people are getting bogged down on semantics rather than acknowledging the overall issue at hand.

Guessing this was not on the SRP board when you posted this otherwise some of the people who liked your comment may have seen the irony a little better.

 

[GTroit]

Fair comment. From the full judgment by Kennedy

Yes... this quote doesn't support your argument in any event. I don't know the relevance of it?

Regardless, legal formulations do not delineate fact. They delineate law. Indeed, that's the whole premise of the criminal justice system - the jury acts as the predominant fact finding body; the judiciary (particularly justiciary) are those that determine the law. In civil matters (given that the burden need only be discharged on the balance of probabilities), judges do make findings of "fact". But these findings are not so much "factual" as they are "reasonable" summation of the likely turn of events.

You'd have a better time quoting science and anthropology to justify your stance, rather than anything citing legal decisions in an effort to prove history.

 

[GTroit]

In the 1960's, women in government jobs were expected to retire if they fell pregnant. Career over. Now their jobs are preserved while they decide when to return. And everyone pays for their maternity leave.

The last sentence in the article I linked to (which is pro-women): "The West will be struggling to cope with the social consequences of women's economic empowerment for many years to come."

Howard's tweak merely enshrined the accepted definition in law.

Actually, Howard's formulation redefined the law. Penzance postulated the definition - which found its roots in common law and not statute (remember, statute overrides common law) - as "according to Christendom". Howard removed this element. Therefore, all marriage (regardless of Christian ordained status or otherwise) was covered by the rest of the definition postulated by Penzance. Further, with Howard's codification of the common law into statute, he removed the changing nature of common law - indeed, this was *why* he created the definition; he was scared that the court was going to redefine marriage by rejecting UK precedent.

You're entitled to your view - no one is disputing that. But at least be honest and not disingenuous about it:
You hate gays because they make you uncomfortable and you don't want gay marriage to exist because of that discomfort. There really is no logical reason for your beliefs, your beliefs just exist as they are because of your uncomfortable feelings on the issue.

 

[Brick Loosener]

You're entitled to your view - no one is disputing that. But at least be honest and not disingenuous about it:
You hate gays because they make you uncomfortable and you don't want gay marriage to exist because of that discomfort. There really is no logical reason for your beliefs, your beliefs just exist as they are because of your uncomfortable feelings on the issue.

How do gays make people uncomfortable?
No logical reason for this belief.

 

[skilts]

Your choice of words provides an insight. For you to get what you want, others must lose.

Getting people like you pissed off is more than adequate. Thanks for that.

 

[spinynorman]

How do gays make people uncomfortable?
No logical reason for this belief.

Because two men kissing (or even more!) is icky.

Two women doing it's pretty hot though. But men - gross!

 

[skilts]

Because two men kissing (or even more!) is icky.

Two women doing it's pretty hot though. But men - gross!

What is 'icky'?

 

[OzJohnnie]

But can he kick? Does he crash packs? Courage to put his head over the ball?

You all crack me up. The only thing that matters to people arguing in this forum about a football player is who he sleeps with. Some like that a hypothetical gay player sleeps with a man, others don't. But the obsession over his hypothetical sexual habits dominates the discussion in one way or another.

You'll never see a gay player of any quality because of the circus that people like you create. Why would anyone ever come out? He makes his living off kicking the pigskins, not being a pawn in your self-aggrandising internet forum wars.

 

[Gough]

The closet is a f***ing horrible place to be, you try hiding a significant of your life from people, and see how you like it. It seems to me the less people profess to care about the issue, the longer their post telling of how little they care is.

 

[Lebbo73]

It seems to me that if you are a minority, you have to tell the whole ******* world about it!

 

[Forward Press]

The closet is a f***ing horrible place to be, you try hiding a significant of your life from people, and see how you like it. It seems to me the less people profess to care about the issue, the longer their post telling of how little they care is.

You should've kept your mouth shut, nobody likes a NTTAWWTter.

/sarcasm

According to Lebbo and the like, if you're different you should keep quiet. We (which is probably safe to assume refer to straight white males) hate uppity minorities.

 

[Gough]

You should've kept your mouth shut, nobody likes a NTTAWWTter.

/sarcasm

According to Lebbo and the like, if you're different you should keep quiet. We (which is probably safe to assume refer to straight white males) hate uppity minorities.

When I came out it was still illegal for me to have sex in Tasmania, that's how far we've come in under twenty five years. Laws like this have only changed because of gobby NTTAWWTters, long may we reign.

 

[Forward Press]

When I came out it was still illegal for me to have sex in Tasmania, that's how far we've come in under twenty five years. Laws like this have only changed because of gobby NTTAWWTters, long may we reign.

I for one welcome our new gay overlords, and remind them that as a trusted BigFooty personality I can round up homophobes to work in their fabulous underground sex cauldrons.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I for one welcome our new gay overlords, and remind them that as a trusted BigFooty personality I can round up homophobes to work in their fabulous underground sex cauldrons.

 

[Brick Loosener]

Because two men kissing (or even more!) is icky.

Two women doing it's pretty hot though. But men - gross!

* off.