Marriage equality

[spotthedog1]

Lions_Insider - just interested more out of curiosity rather than anything, is the club planning on following the lead of the AFL and some of the other clubs and coming out in support of Equality?

Just to offer an alternative - is the club planning on coming out against same-sex marriage?

Of course, I don't expect the club to do that. I would be thoroughly disappointed if the club did come out either for or against SSM. Organisations jumping on political bandwagons unrelated to their causes is just tacky, and is either a form of marketing (which then becomes abhorrent, using any social cause for business profit) or financial mismanagement (if using company funds to spruik a director/manager's opinion).

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Just to offer an alternative - is the club planning on coming out against same-sex marriage?

Of course, I don't expect the club to do that. I would be thoroughly disappointed if the club did come out either for or against SSM. Organisations jumping on political bandwagons unrelated to their causes is just tacky, and is either a form of marketing (which then becomes abhorrent, using any social cause for business profit) or financial mismanagement (if using company funds to spruik a director/manager's opinion).

It's actually a social issue, not political. And if the issue aligns with an organisations core tenets then I don't have a problem with it. Not much different to supporting a charity in some ways.

 

[spotthedog1]

It's actually a social issue, not political. And if the issue aligns with an organisations core tenets then I don't have a problem with it. Not much different to supporting a charity in some ways.

Answering in this thread to prevent that one getting caught up in replies.

I'm fine with it being called a social issue. I'd say, realistically, it's both.

I would argue, though, that it's a point of some debate - I think pretty much everyone should agree that there has been PLENTY of debate, and that it's obviously two sides to the debate. Charities generally aren't a cause for debate. No one is suggesting that the AFL should be anti-helping-sick-kids, or pro-cancer. Throwing your support behind a charity, etc, is great. The Lions have done that plenty. Picking sides in a debate is troublesome, and as I've said in my last post, I don't like organisations doing it - in my opinion (and I recognise that many will disagree with me), it is poor business ethics, unless it has something to do with their field of expertise (eg. an airline contributing to a debate on air safety).

I'll draw a distinction at this point - welfare of gay AFL players is important, and they should be free to come out without any form of negative remarks, fear, bullying, etc. We know that sporting clubs can be a tough place for gay people to feel accepted, and because of this, I have no issue with the AFL/Lions having an opinion as being anti-homophobia, anti-vilification, and supporting causes like mental health awareness for the LGBTQI community, so that players and supporters can feel welcomed. That does not extend to same-sex marriage though, which is completely irrelevant to an AFL club.

Edit: Completely agree with "if the issue aligns with an organisation's core tenets" - however as I've explained above, I think that would proclude the Lions from having an opinion on SSM.

 

[WA Lion]

Just to offer an alternative - is the club planning on coming out against same-sex marriage?

Of course, I don't expect the club to do that. I would be thoroughly disappointed if the club did come out either for or against SSM. Organisations jumping on political bandwagons unrelated to their causes is just tacky, and is either a form of marketing (which then becomes abhorrent, using any social cause for business profit) or financial mismanagement (if using company funds to spruik a director/manager's opinion).

Whilst there is the obvious matter of the postal vote, to me this isn't actually a political matter, rather a social and equality one. I won't get caught up in the vote issue itself but I am very comfortable that the club should if it see fit, comment on a significant equality matter given its role in the community.

Anyway, pretty sure there was a separate discussion thread so I will shut up now!

 

[spotthedog1]

Whilst there is the obvious matter of the postal vote, to me this isn't actually a political matter, rather a social and equality one. I won't get caught up in the vote issue itself but I am very comfortable that the club should if it see fit, comment on a significant equality matter given its role in the community.

Anyway, pretty sure there was a separate discussion thread so I will shut up now!

See above. A social matter, I'll agree with, an equality one I will not. "Marriage Equality" was a marketing prerogative that started to gain traction a few years back. Making it about "equal vs not equal" was actually a great marketing tactic with huge success. Who is going to argue against equality?

As it is, there have been over 70 laws amended to provide the LGBTQI community equality. Most of these went through in 2007-2009, when all social services, governmental recognitions, etc, were passed, providing gay couples with identical rights to straight couples. For the record, the argument of "in the event of death, some same-sex couples don't get recognised as next of kin" is complete rubbish.

Because of this, I completely disagree that this has anything to do with equality. Social, sure. Political, sure. Rights vs freedoms, sure. Equality, I don't agree.

Per my last post, I see absolutely no reason that the Brisbane Lions AFL club should have an opinion on same sex marriage.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Social issues remain social issues even if they become politicised.

Funny how no one seems to play the "clubs should stay out of social issues" card when it supports our military or takes a stand on domestic violence or drug/alcohol abuse yet apparently it would be a massive overreach if they AFL decided to come out in support of marriage equality. It's not about drawing a line between sport and society, it's absout cracking the sads when they do it on an issue you personally don't support.

This all ties in to reasons why the NO campaign has absolutely driven me up the wall. They have been utterly cowardly in refusing to actually own the real reasons they are voting NO. Instead they cower behind false arguments and excuses...

- "I'm voting no because I have been bullied by the left and I'm sick of having the issue shoved down my throat". Rubbish. You're either lying or you are are immature and spiteful in your motivations. Not to mention the hilarity of painting disenfranchised minority groups as some sort of overwhelming force.

- "I'm voting no because *insert random slippery slope argument here*:. Laughable. You know you can't concoct a reasonable argument on the issue itself and have to resort to "what ifs".

"I'm voting no because the Government should be focusing on bigger issues" - again, a pathetic smokescreen. Delaying inevitable marriage equality maximises the distraction rather that shelving it.

"I'm voting NO because I'm a Christian" - hilarious. Plenty of passages in the bible about embracing everyone and leaving judgement to God. People are just using their religion as a smokescreen to justify their existing problems with homosexuals. The same way they cherry pick the parts of the bible that they wish to ignore.


I wish the no side would just own the real reasons they are voting no. I've never seen such a cowardly and dishonest political campaign.


Lions_Insider - I would be absolutely elated and proud if the club came out in support of marriage equality. Let's have the courage to stand up on the right side of history.

 

[WA Lion]

See above. A social matter, I'll agree with, an equality one I will not. "Marriage Equality" was a marketing prerogative that started to gain traction a few years back. Making it about "equal vs not equal" was actually a great marketing tactic with huge success. Who is going to argue against equality?

As it is, there have been over 70 laws amended to provide the LGBTQI community equality. Most of these went through in 2007-2009, when all social services, governmental recognitions, etc, were passed, providing gay couples with identical rights to straight couples. For the record, the argument of "in the event of death, some same-sex couples don't get recognised as next of kin" is complete rubbish.

Because of this, I completely disagree that this has anything to do with equality. Social, sure. Political, sure. Rights vs freedoms, sure. Equality, I don't agree.

Per my last post, I see absolutely no reason that the Brisbane Lions AFL club should have an opinion on same sex marriage.

Fair enough, while I disagree, completely respect your right to an opinion on what is both a divisive and emotive subject!

 

[royboy2]

The AFL did it today

 

[spotthedog1]

Fair enough, while I disagree, completely respect your right to an opinion on what is both a divisive and emotive subject!

Fair enough WA Lion. Appreciate the response.

 

[Gadzorks]

The afl have changed the sign outside head office - afl had been replaced with yes as a sign of support for the yes vote.

 

[kylegee28]

Wonder if we'll see anything similar from Brisbane any time soon.

 

[notting18]

The club should come out in favour of marriage equality. If it isn't going to though it would just be stupid to do what Carlton did...

 

[SizeMatters]

Some of the best and nicest people I have met have been homosexuals.

 

[irel]

Some of the best and nicest people I have met have been homosexuals.

Is this the same as, I'm not racist because some of my friends are...

 

[spotthedog1]

Social issues remain social issues even if they become politicised.

Funny how no one seems to play the "clubs should stay out of social issues" card when it supports our military or takes a stand on domestic violence or drug/alcohol abuse yet apparently it would be a massive overreach if they AFL decided to come out in support of marriage equality. It's not about drawing a line between sport and society, it's absout cracking the sads when they do it on an issue you personally don't support.

This all ties in to reasons why the NO campaign has absolutely driven me up the wall. They have been utterly cowardly in refusing to actually own the real reasons they are voting NO. Instead they cower behind false arguments and excuses...

- "I'm voting no because I have been bullied by the left and I'm sick of having the issue shoved down my throat". Rubbish. You're either lying or you are are immature and spiteful in your motivations. Not to mention the hilarity of painting disenfranchised minority groups as some sort of overwhelming force.

- "I'm voting no because *insert random slippery slope argument here*:. Laughable. You know you can't concoct a reasonable argument on the issue itself and have to resort to "what ifs".

"I'm voting no because the Government should be focusing on bigger issues" - again, a pathetic smokescreen. Delaying inevitable marriage equality maximises the distraction rather that shelving it.

"I'm voting NO because I'm a Christian" - hilarious. Plenty of passages in the bible about embracing everyone and leaving judgement to God. People are just using their religion as a smokescreen to justify their existing problems with homosexuals. The same way they cherry pick the parts of the bible that they wish to ignore.


I wish the no side would just own the real reasons they are voting no. I've never seen such a cowardly and dishonest political campaign.


Lions_Insider - I would be absolutely elated and proud if the club came out in support of marriage equality. Let's have the courage to stand up on the right side of history.

I'll assume you're the one who moved my initial post, which included a question for Lions Insider, but left the initial post which was pro-same sex marriage.

I'm very aware that you are vehemently against anyone who is against same-sex marriage. I haven't been involved in loads of discussion on bigfooty about it, but I've been involved in some, and I don't think I've shied away from the issues at all. I could, likewise, come up with an equally dismissive post ridiculing the reasons to vote "yes" in overly simplified ways, but I won't.

I'm happy to debate the issues with you, however if you claim authority over all arguments and write-off any arguments that disagree with you, there's not much point to bothering. Regardless, I'll give brief answers to your points. If you want to debate any in a respectful manner that acknowledges that other points of view exist, no worries.

Social issues - as I have already stated, I would be against the club coming out against same sex marriage. I've also explained why. I'm fine with the club being charitable. I don't like organisations becoming instruments of social and political bandwagoning about topics unrelated to their purpose.

"I'm sick of being bullied by the left". I've run into a few people who have made similar arguments, however it's usually more surrounding people who have been beaten down for being politically incorrect, and their points ignored. I haven't seen a lot of this argument though.

"Slippery slope argument" - On one hand, this vote is about same sex marriage and nothing else. On the other hand, there is significant implications coming out of America, Canada, and various other countries where once same sex marriage have been legalised, rather than claiming victory, pro-same sex marriage organisations moved straight on to surrounding issues. Canada particularly has had some concerning cases pushed for by lobby groups surrounding issues of parents' rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It's a tough one, because this vote is about one thing, but I can see why some people have raised concerns about the flow-on effects.

"Government should be focusing on bigger issues" - I agree with the point, but haven't heard anyone say they're voting no because of it. Most people I've talked to on both sides have argued that the cost of the plebiscite could be better spent on health or other issues. That said, the Libs did make it an election promise, so it's a tough one - do we want them to break a promise (reinforcing the lying politician stereotype) or keep a promise and waste money. Frankly, if they insisted on a plebiscite, I'd have preferred the Libs to tack the question on to the last federal election - would've been much cheaper, quicker and more accurate.

"Religion" - This is the part of your view that really annoys me. Despite not being Christian (I'm assuming based on prior posts), you are claiming authority over the meaning of the entire Bible. If you want to have a Biblical debate with me, I am very happy to oblige. Honestly, I'd really love to. But I don't think you want to do that. I think you want to take one general vibe that you remember from primary school, and a couple of verses you've read (and ignored all context surrounding), and dismiss the entire Bible based on that. And then accuse other people of cherry-picking verses to back up their opinions. Seriously, I don't get how you can claim authority over the predominant views of all of the major theistic religions. If you want to argue a specific point or verse, I'm happy to oblige. Otherwise, please don't try to tell me what my religious views are.

 

[SizeMatters]

Is this the same as, I'm not racist because some of my friends are...

No idea what this post means sorry.

 

[irel]

No idea what this post means sorry.

Ah OK.

 

[spotthedog1]

Some of the best and nicest people I have met have been homosexuals.

Is this the same as, I'm not racist because some of my friends are...

Think irel was wondering if your post was followed by a "but"...

Personally though, I've found it to be a mixed bag. I've met some lovely and charming homosexuals, and I've met some rude and offensive LGBTQI people. Funnily enough, I've found it to be about the same ratio as the general population. Whodathunkit.

 

[irel]

Think irel was wondering if your post was followed by a "but"...

Personally though, I've found it to be a mixed bag. I've met some lovely and charming homosexuals, and I've met some rude and offensive LGBTQI people. Funnily enough, I've found it to be about the same ratio as the general population. Whodathunkit.

Yeah Whodathunkit.

 

[dlanod]

I'll assume you're the one who moved my initial post, which included a question for Lions Insider, but left the initial post which was pro-same sex marriage.

TheBrownDog is not a moderator on the Brisbane Lions board so isn't able to move posts.

I moved the post as it was clearly a riff off the previous post.

 

[spotthedog1]

TheBrownDog is not a moderator on the Brisbane Lions board so isn't able to move posts.

I moved the post as it was clearly a riff off the previous post.

Righto. It was a riff off the previous post, you're absolutely right, but I thought it provided balance to the previous post, which questioned whether the Lions would join the yes side or stay out of the debate. I find it interesting that nowhere is it ever considered that an organisation would join the no side. Admittedly, it'd be business suicide to do so, but still, I find it interesting.

 

[Tassie4ever]

Is there nowhere you can go to get away from this SSM crap.

A blog on footy would seem to be a likely place but obviously not.

 

[SizeMatters]

Think irel was wondering if your post was followed by a "but"...

Personally though, I've found it to be a mixed bag. I've met some lovely and charming homosexuals, and I've met some rude and offensive LGBTQI people. Funnily enough, I've found it to be about the same ratio as the general population. Whodathunkit.

Well male homosexuals have only ever been great people to be around in my experience (admittedly though majority were from university). My post was more based on male homosexuals. Can't say the same for the female variety who for some reason or another always have to prove themselves as the 'alpha' or something which is usually followed by excessive swearing, drinking, spitting and no concern for the general public in these public displays. This is from my own experiences though and I guess I've just been unlucky.

What I really dislike is this multiple genders stuff that's apparently being taught in school. I have lost count the amount of 'genders' someone could be but it is ridiculous and a waste of teaching resources but that is for another discussion.

 

[Skoob]

I just wonder how it would feel, to be one of our gay staff, players or members, about our club's silence while others are speaking up.
This is not a political issue. It is a basic matter of equality in the same context as women being allowed to vote or indigenous Australians being allowed to use the same facilities as white Australians. It has taken far too long to get to this point, and now we are here, it is being made a shitfight.
I think I'd be bitterly disappointed if I worked at the Lions and they refuse to voice support for my rights in what is a very public discourse.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I'll assume you're the one who moved my initial post, which included a question for Lions Insider, but left the initial post which was pro-same sex marriage.

Well you've assumed wrong from the outset. Off to a flyer.

As for the rest, get over yourself, it's not all about you. I didn't even quote you and it's pretty obvious my post was about the various angles I've seen the NO side take. How you decided it was all directly about you is beyond me.

My entire comments about Christianity stand btw. You can shove your "what you remembered from primary school" condescension up your arse.

I was raised Catholic and have many religious family members and see the hypocrisy all the time. Not sure where I have claimed to have "authority over the predominant views of all the major theistic religions". Seriously, where did you pull that from? Lol. I can imagine that automatically assuming that anyone who critiques your religion is doing so from a position of profound ignorance is a convenient safety net to protect your personal faith though.

We've had the debate before, we aren't going to change each other's minds.

And we can quibble over technicalities and interpretations of biblical verses all day long. Ultimately, in the same way that I imagine that you don't believe that the words within the Quran or Hubbard's Dianetics are divine truth, I'm sure you can equally understand that I see the Bible in the same way.

Letting public policy in a secular society be in any way influenced by "sacred texts" is obscene and completely irrational at the best of times. Using it to deny rights to people who may not even hold such religious views is a new magnitude of bullshit and oppression.

And ultimately, the only logical response to the religious argument is... if you don't want gay marriage, don't get one. Simple. End of story.