Remove this Banner Ad

Universal Love Purple Bombers

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I think the underlying point made by BomberBlitz is that someone is generally always offended no matter the intentions behind whatever act has caused the offence. By making this gesture for this weekend's game, some people's beliefs/thoughts/morals will be challenged while others will think it's great. Given the footy club is meant to be an all inclusive environment regardless of race, religion, sexuality or whatever else, should it be used as a vehicle to push one agenda in an attempt at inclusion when it gets others offside?

Personally I don't have an issue with it at all. Inclusion is exactly that and the counter argument to the last sentence I made above is that majority groups have basically always been included, an exercise in inclusion for minority groups is a way to show the door is always open. It's inclusion, not exclusion.
 
Pweter said:
I think the underlying point made by BomberBlitz is that someone is generally always offended no matter the intentions behind whatever act has caused the offence. By making this gesture for this weekend's game, some people's beliefs/thoughts/morals will be challenged while others will think it's great. Given the footy club is meant to be an all inclusive environment regardless of race, religion, sexuality or whatever else, should it be used as a vehicle to push one agenda in an attempt at inclusion when it gets others offside?

Personally I don't have an issue with it at all. Inclusion is exactly that and the counter argument to the last sentence I made above is that majority groups have basically always been included, an exercise in inclusion for minority groups is a way to show the door is always open. It's inclusion, not exclusion.
Click to expand...
and if inclusion leads to a conflict between groups then we are going to exclude those who are not prepared to be inclusive.
 
sameolds33 said:
and if inclusion leads to a conflict between groups then we are going to exclude those who are not prepared to be inclusive.
Click to expand...

We're all supporters/members of a footy club and there's going to be many diverse groups within every club yet not every group will traditionally see eye to eye. It's not like we all have to sit around the campfire holding hands and singing kumbaya, and I think that's what is getting lost on some people.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BombzrBlitz said:
That concerns me greatly. Especially as his equality partys focus is mainly on SSM.
This can send a mixed message from the club considering currently SSM is not legal. (its not illegal either) point being many people who are supporters of EFC but personally are against SSM being legal could see this as excluding supporters with differing views and even seemingly passively saying... "we are an inclusive club and if you dont support the PB with us who support SSM then your not welcome"

Sure there not saying that explicitly... but people dont take all things literally, they read the writing on the wall, and this thing has been building for years with a gradual grooming of fans IMO.. now a training jumper? Its a slippery slope.

For me i dont think the Club should be looking at Inclusiveness,... its unachievable. clubs are not places where we go to "agree to agree" AMong fans there are heaps of opposing view points, and i dont think trying to harbour inclusiveness is the key to a good club... rather tolerance.
Be it you are a fan who is liberal or Conservative, blue collar or white collar, Global warming denier or greeny. You go to the see the bombers because you like the bombers and football... not to be told to vote labour, or get against global warming, or to get behind LGBTIQA issues..

Unfortunaly i just dont see how the EFC or football is a platform for furthering LGBTIQA issues.... no more than it is a platform for forwarding issues of the Catholic church.

If you want to talk those issues go to the town square where it has traditionally done.
Click to expand...
 
But having said all that, people who are against SSM can get ****ed as far as I'm concerned.
 
Pweter said:
We're all supporters/members of a footy club and there's going to be many diverse groups within every club yet not every group will traditionally see eye to eye. It's not like we all have to sit around the campfire holding hands and singing kumbaya, and I think that's what is getting lost on some people.
Click to expand...
Agree. The club has made it clear that all are welcome to support the Bombers and are entitled to feel safe in our community. So anyone who feels it necessary to make their adverse views on SSM known to members of the Purple Bombers are the ones who should be excluded in the same way that the racists in our community know not to broadcast those views here.
 
Beerfish said:
But having said all that, people who are against SSM can get ****** as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
My sister (who is a lesbian) is against it. Mostly because she's against the whole concept of marriage though.
 
eth-dog said:
My sister (who is a lesbian) is against it. Mostly because she's against the whole concept of marriage though.
Click to expand...
does she realise they're not wanting to make same sex marriage compulsory?
 
jmoo said:
does she realise they're not wanting to make same sex marriage compulsory?
Click to expand...
No! She only works in Victorian Parliament :rolleyes:.
 
It's not even just about marriage.

It's more that it should be no one's business, but the individuals', what anyone's sexual preference is. Why should I care if someone prefers the fellas or the gals? It doesn't affect me in any way.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

carloss said:
How very tolerant of you :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is true. I'm not very tolerant of wilful ignorance and people who are against something that in no way affects them. I guess I need to work on that.

Actually nah I'm pretty comfortable with it.
 
BombzrBlitz said:
Funnily enough, in that same period of time there has been no discovery to think it is genetic either.
It seems it is by choice... not that being hetreosexual is not a choice either. They both are really.
Nearly every thing is a choice except for disease and death it seems.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that our closest relatives the Bonobos (Pygmy chimpanzees) engage in same sex pairings, heterosexual pairings and group sex and this is thought to lead to a more peaceful life for them at the expense of paternalistic behaviour. But hey, maybe they are naughty, 'sinful' monkeys that also ate from the tree of good and evil with Adam and Eve. To think that this is even a topic for debate in 2017 or that we consider ourselves as anything other than just part of the animal kingdom is sad.
 
Last edited:
IDAHOT day celebrations wrapped up at my office about an hour ago. We had the local Labour candidate from the previous federal election tell their story of being raised by a same sex couple. It was both captivating and inspiring.
 

 
tesla1962 said:
Are you aware that our closest relatives the Bonobos (Pygmy chimpanzees) engage in same sex pairings, heterosexual pairings and group sex and this is thought to lead to a more peaceful life for them at the expense of paternalistic behaviour. But hey, maybe they are naughty, 'sinful' monkeys that also ate from the tree of good and evil with Adam and Eve. To think that this is even a topic for debate in 2017 or that we consider ourselves as anything other than just part of the animal kingdom is sad.
Click to expand...
I agree with same sex marriage but i hate this argument. Incest is pretty rife within sections of the animal community, i think we can do better than justifying something by saying "monkeys do it"
 
yodellinhank said:
I agree with same sex marriage but i hate this argument. Incest is pretty rife within sections of the animal community, i think we can do better than justifying something by saying "monkeys do it"
Click to expand...
That would be an extremely superficial way to look at it and I wasn't justifying anything by saying 'monkeys do it'. I was suggesting that bisexuality is naturally occurring in our closest relative the bonobo (and a range of other animals) and when you look at it there are clearly identifiable benefits to their society that flow from this behaviour. There may also be drawbacks to males being less paternalistic, not sure. Infanticide is rife in the animal kingdom but I would never suggest that it's ok in humans. Please, the argument I was making was more sophisticated than your interpretation.
 
Last edited:

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

yodellinhank said:
I agree with same sex marriage but i hate this argument. Incest is pretty rife within sections of the animal community, i think we can do better than justifying something by saying "monkeys do it"
Click to expand...
So I need to stop throwing my shit at people?
 
Maddogm said:
As long as they consent...
Click to expand...
Well the thing about that is....they don't until I throw enough until they do....but I might be just a touch off topic here. :oops:

FWIW I love the extra rainbow lanyards around the office today, I even got given a rainbow lollipop. Our office does a lot of work with the LTGBI branch of the Department of Premier & Cabinet. They do a lot of great work so it's great to see Essendon and the Purple Bombers doing their bit.
 
yodellinhank said:
I agree with same sex marriage but i hate this argument. Incest is pretty rife within sections of the animal community, i think we can do better than justifying something by saying "monkeys do it"
Click to expand...
The only thing that really separates us from monkeys is our specific societal structure (language, government, culture, economy, etc.) Our culture is what dictates what is socially acceptable, not what is natural.

Incest mostly appears to be a social construct, given that types of incest that are usually forbidden include couples who are not blood related and/or couples who cannot reproduce, while relationships between cousins are legal in most places outside of Asia, and are common, accepted and even expected in some countries (over half of all marriages are cousin marriages in some places :O ).
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
So I need to stop throwing my shit at people?
Click to expand...
The world would certainly benefit if we as Homo sapiens stopped throwing our shit around
Fly said:
The only thing that really separates us from monkeys is our specific societal structure (language, government, culture, economy, etc.) Our culture is what dictates what is socially acceptable, not what is natural.

Incest mostly appears to be a social construct, given that types of incest that are usually forbidden include couples who are not blood related and/or couples who cannot reproduce, while relationships between cousins are legal in most places outside of Asia, and are common, accepted and even expected in some countries (over half of all marriages are cousin marriages in some places :O ).
Click to expand...
Given the deleterious genetic outcomes that arise from incest, it is a little more than a social construct. Biological mechanisms operating at a molecular level, like being attracted to those that smell different to us while at the same time being turned off by those who smell the same as us, help minimise incest. I have often wondered to what extent the social rules have been informed by an understanding of the adverse genetic outcomes, at least at some albeit incomplete level. I imagine this has been studied and I am just ignorant about it.
 
Last edited:
tesla1962 said:
Given the deleterious genetic outcomes that arise from incest, it is a little more than a social construct. Biological mechanism operating at a molecular level, like being attracted to those that smell different to us while at the same time being turned off by those who smell the same as us, help minimise incest.
Click to expand...
It goes well beyond that, was my point. If it was just about reproduction then it would only include couples who are closely blood-related and capable of reproducing. Incest also includes relationships with step-siblings, step-parents/children, adoptive relationships and relationship by marriage (in-laws). It is my understanding that marrying your dead spouse's sibling was only made legal relatively recently. Of course there's a difference between consanguinity and affinity, but both are considered incest and are socially unacceptable (hence 'social construct').

The mechanism you're talking about is interesting. I've heard that there is a mechanism that mostly affects people who have grown up together, hence reported instances of incest (outside of child abuse) are usually siblings that met as adults?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Universal Love Purple Bombers

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top