Society/Culture Margaret Court won't fly QANTAS because they support gay-marriage

Remove this Banner Ad

It would be very hard pressed to find a credible argument against gay marriage.

Some religious folk just like to cling on to traditional definitions of certain things e.g. marriage between man and woman, can't eat pork because pigs are dirty, only eat seafood on Good Friday etc.
Some of it probably stems from respecting older generations, parents, grandparents etc opinions or just respect in general even if their opinions are from a different era of innocence and ignorance.

Much like parts of Asia, the respect of parents isn't always a bad thing.

The opposite we see playing out here, where certain kidds must've been raised under a rock or by terrible parents and carry a massive chip and disrespect through life.
 
That's debatable. At least 40% of the country would vote no if a plebiscite was held. Because Labor and The Greens are against a plebiscite, that is a clue in itself that they are scared that a plebiscite on gay marriage would fail. Btw, if given the chance, I will vote yes.

Its not debateable. Every recent poll has put support at close to 70%.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/el...es-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z

Yes would win in a landslide. We've been over this countless times as to why Labor/Greens oppose a plebiscite, nothing to do with your fantasy about SSM being knocked back.

Labor will simply legislate for it when next in government. No need for a plebiscite unless its a referendum to change the Constitution.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well the parents accept the child for who he is or they run the risk of losing a child through their own stupidity, which is not a good look to say the least.
 
That's debatable. At least 40% of the country would vote no if a plebiscite was held. Because Labor and The Greens are against a plebiscite, that is a clue in itself that they are scared that a plebiscite on gay marriage would fail. Btw, if given the chance, I will vote yes.
Rubbish, it would easily pass because the majority of people either support it or don't care at all and just want it over with. The ALP and Greens oppose the plebiscite because they don't really care about the issue, they just want the credit for introducing it.
 
Probably the greatest tennis player ever, but her same sex relationships and marriage equality views are based on religious bigotry which has its origins in a highly superstitious, fearful of the unknown, less educated and ill informed era.
She hasn't called for any violence, she has just expressed an opinion. The Left needs to accept that people have free will and are allowed not to mindlessly follow their view.
 
She hasn't called for any violence, she has just expressed an opinion. The Left needs to accept that people have free will and are allowed not to mindlessly follow their view.
Nobody has said she can't express her point of view. But others are free to point out her opinion is bigoted.
 
She has been spouting homophobic Christian crap for over a decade yet why are we hearing about name changes now.

Try 40+ years she has been sprouting stuff, she can talk in "voices".

Margaret Court is a champion tennis player, Don Bradman was a champion cricketer, but both had off field views & actions that clouded their achievements. They are still sports champions.
 
What if you have gay parents?

You can't impregnate a turd, son. What you have instead is an abuse of adoption.

Now back to the topic - I would vote yes to gay marriage but I don't see why a mental breakdown is required if Court does not wish to support a company which has a policy ahe disagrees with.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted in thread from 2012 but would do better as a new thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...nis-not-if-margaret-court-has-her-way.902849/


She is entitled to her opinion, she also has to cop the backlash by making her opinion public.
But she is still entitled to think for herself and form her own views whether we agree or not. It doesn't make her a bad person by having her own opinion.

good on her for having her opinion

but it's a shame her opinion goes against the grain of the law. speaking of which, out marriage laws go against the grain of our laws.
 
Her opinions are odious, but if she doesn't want to fly QANTAS nobody can make her.

I'm waiting to see if she boycotts 7 media, I mean, isn't their CEO ? being accused of being involved in dubious extra marital & sniffing activities.

Court's comments were made in the letters to the editor section of a 7 media publication.

We are a democracy, she is allowed to make a comment.
 
She hasn't called for any violence, she has just expressed an opinion. The Left needs to accept that people have free will and are allowed not to mindlessly follow their view.
I didn't say she had RR. Being gay is a completely natural occurrence in our species, I don't know why people get so fascinated and offended by what consenting sound of mind adults do with and to each others bodies.

She is certainly entitled to her opinion although when she put it out in the public arena she has to accept feedback/reaction to that opinion, I am not wound up by it, I am just putting my opinion out there.
 
I believe gay marriage should be legal I can't understand how anyone could care what others do, but I can't understand how the general public can be so up in arms over a lady supports the current australian law?

How dare she doesn't want gay marriage? Well guess what neither does you government. It's illegal?
 
Its not debateable. Every recent poll has put support at close to 70%.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/el...es-in-gay-marriage-plebiscite-20160701-gpwg3z

Yes would win in a landslide. We've been over this countless times as to why Labor/Greens oppose a plebiscite, nothing to do with your fantasy about SSM being knocked back.

Labor will simply legislate for it when next in government. No need for a plebiscite unless its a referendum to change the Constitution.
Its actually a very interesting question.
Im not entirely sure the result would be so clear cut.
 
You can't take her name off court, it's not as if she'd called for mass executions of NTTAWWTs. She's still an amazing tennis player with an incredible record, she's just a silly old bugger as well.
Lets take her name off the court for being against something that is currently against the law? I honestly dont understand.

How dare she have the same view as the law of Australia.
 
Lets take her name off the court for being against something that is currently against the law? I honestly dont understand.

How dare she have the same view as the law of Australia.
In defence of Gough he didn't say she should have her name taken off the court. He said the opposite actually. I can't believe that I am defending him! :p
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top