Universal Love Purple Bombers

[carloss]

Hope the club gets a share of the money.

 

[Aeglos]

Yeah I'd say incest is mostly a social construct (pure bloodlines etc etc).
Though there would be some biological component as similar people are more likely to be attracted to each other, and often people of the same bloodline share both physical and emotional similarities.

As an aside, I can't stand the term "normal".
What is normal? How do we define normal? What object measure do we put normal against?
Always try and use common and uncommon in its place (much to the chagrin of my uni teachers lol)

 

[Lore]

Hope the club gets a share of the money.

From their website:

Where does the membership money go?

Your contribution is very important to us as we strive to become leaders of change and to foster an inclusive environment in sport. By tackling homophobia, as well as gender equality and indigenous rights, the Essendon Football Club are behind us all the way and are supporting our cause to provide a support network within the AFL/sports community for players and supporters.

The money from every membership is used to invest in promoting the message of equality in sport, through marketing and promotional materials. The resources help us to stand up and be heard, and be the voice for so many people who need the support of the community to be who they are and be accepted and embraced. We’re also looking to fund local community education programs that will help to create a healthy message of equality and anti-bullying from a young age.

The funds are also used to give back to Essendon Football Club in the form of player sponsorship. This year our sponsored players are: Michael Hartley, Michael Hurley, and Orazio Fantasia. They’re an important part of our mission as they have the following to really make the message of respect and inclusion known. With their support and advocacy, we can really make a difference.

https://www.purplebombers.com/about-purple-bombers/

 

[jmoo wan]

From their website:

https://www.purplebombers.com/about-purple-bombers/

This year our sponsored players are: Michael Hartley, Michael Hurley, and Orazio Fantasia.

Well they can **** right off - he's ours!

 

[Lore]

Well they can **** right off - he's ours!

Well that's not a very inclusive attitude now is it?

I think Harts is one of ours too actually.

 

[Longjohnmire]

While I didn't agree with a lot of what bomberblitzer posted, he does have a point.
I'm all for inclusion in all ways, I just don't want the club taking sides on any political issues. Footy is supposed to be a bit of an escape for everyone (including all LGTBQI members of the community) from the 'real world' and all it's issues and bullshit.

 

[Beerfish]

While I didn't agree with a lot of what bomberblitzer posted, he does have a point.
I'm all for inclusion in all ways, I just don't want the club taking sides on any political issues. Footy is supposed to be a bit of an escape for everyone (including all LGTBQI members of the community) from the 'real world' and all it's issues and bullshit.

The thing is though, this shouldn't be a political issue. It's just common sense.

 

[Longjohnmire]

The thing is though, this shouldn't be a political issue. It's just common sense.

Agreed. I think most fair minded people do.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The thing is though, this shouldn't be a political issue. It's just common sense.

given marriage has been little more than a political institution for 99.9% of its existence as a concept it's not hugely surprising though. That's what amuses me about the argument against SSM being preserving the sanctity of marriage because that's how it's always been.

Well, not really. Not at all in fact. For the overwhelming majority of the time it's existed marriage has been a glorified auction whereby one family purchases shares in another family. It's been a transaction more than it's been anything else.

So if you're really about preserving history that's what you're preserving. Women as a commodity. If you actually think of marriage as the act of codifying a union then opposition to SSM is indefensible.

As ever, as with abortion, the culture wars are nothing more than the dying echoes of obsolete social structures and religious doctrine; but then, the flipside of that is a loss of meaning for people who drew a sense of self from institutions that are now decaying, and that's a process we're seeing play out right now with the culture shock of the slow shattering of liberal democracy and family/class/religious stuctures and the seething anger of the atomised middle class

 

[Beerfish]

Yeah that too.

 

[Doss]

"Man and woman to the exclusion of all others". So cringeworthy and the fact that it must be uttered in the rites for a marriage to be even be legal here is worse still.

Yes it's an entirely symbolic thing, but when my fiancée and I tie the knot later this year we plan on also including the pre-amble about how we don't agree with the law and hope to see it changed, and believe it should be for all etc. A few relatives on either side won't like it. Too bad for them though.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

"Man and woman to the exclusion of all others". So cringeworthy and the fact that it must be uttered in the rites for a marriage to be even be legal here is worse still.

Yes it's an entirely symbolic thing, but when my fiancée and I tie the knot the later this year we plan on also including the pre-amble about how we don't agree with the law. A few relatives on either side won't like it. Too bad for them though.

one of my oldest friends got married and also just added a few lines about how it is their hope that one day it won't be limited to a man and woman. I like that you can subvert the spirit of that stupid law so easily - whereby you actually make an issue of it and raise awareness out of being forced to acknowledge it. Talk about your stupid ****ing backfiring edicts

 

[Lore]

I've heard of people marrying in a registry office earlier the same day or even a few days earlier and then doing it again in front of everyone to get around the requirement for that phrase. It's common in some places to marry twice anyway, once legally and then in the church of their choosing, but it's probably a bit unusual here because we allow church officials to act on behalf of the state (or at least legally recognise the ceremonies that they preside over).

The marriage act was only changed by Howard (in 2004!) to define it as 'one man and one woman'. Before that it was common law, which would have meant that the states and territories could legalise it without coming up against the constitution (i.e. the ACT would've been able to keep their marriage equality laws). AND it was a suspiciously timed change too, because the UK had a proposed bill on recognition of civil unions right before our laws were changed to exclude SSM.

 

[sameolds33]

"Man and woman to the exclusion of all others". So cringeworthy and the fact that it must be uttered in the rites for a marriage to be even be legal here is worse still.

Yes it's an entirely symbolic thing, but when my fiancée and I tie the knot the later this year we plan on also including the pre-amble about how we don't agree with the law. A few relatives on either side won't like it. Too bad for them though.

Good on you! We wrote our marriage vows too - 26 years ago, sitting on Bondi beach on the morning of the wedding. Our celebrant gave us a book with suggested text. We were both taken by the anarchist feminist wording, "I take thee, comrade for as long as we both shall love." Kind of wish we had gone with that just for the shock value.

 

[Doss]

I've heard of people marrying in a registry office earlier the same day or even a few days earlier and then doing it again in front of everyone to get around the requirement for that phrase. It's common in some places to marry twice anyway, once legally and then in the church of their choosing, but it's probably a bit unusual here because we allow church officials to act on behalf of the state (or at least legally recognise the ceremonies that they preside over).

The marriage act was only changed by Howard (in 2004!) to define it as 'one man and one woman'. Before that it was common law, which would have meant that the states and territories could legalise it without coming up against the constitution (i.e. the ACT would've been able to keep their marriage equality laws). AND it was a suspiciously timed change too, because the UK had a proposed bill on recognition of civil unions right before our laws were changed to exclude SSM.

Yep. In 2004.

Well done, Honest John.

 

[jmoo wan]

I've heard of people marrying in a registry office earlier the same day or even a few days earlier and then doing it again in front of everyone to get around the requirement for that phrase

that's a shame, and quite unnecessary as any celebrant who is not a moron would happily make it clear the bride and groom (and celebrant) think it is ridiculous and anachronistic requirement.

source: am a celebrant, am not a moron

 

[Lore]

that's a shame, and quite unnecessary as any celebrant who is not a moron would happily make it clear the bride and groom (and celebrant) think it is ridiculous and anachronistic requirement.

source: am a celebrant, am not a moron

I guess it's just a matter of preference. Maybe some people don't want to even have it as a point of contention among their guests that day *shrug*

I know my folk would go nutters about making a "political" point at the start of the ceremony – they're in the "why can't we have something that's sacred for just men and women" camp.

 

[yodellinhank]

Friends of mine had a post amble which i thought worked quite well, at the end of the bit about exclusion of all others simply said something like "kelly and Michael look forward to a future in which all couples are treated equally and with dignity" was the first time i'd heard people express their view in the ceremony.

 

[yodellinhank]

one of my oldest friends got married and also just added a few lines about how it is their hope that one day it won't be limited to a man and woman. I like that you can subvert the spirit of that stupid law so easily - whereby you actually make an issue of it and raise awareness out of being forced to acknowledge it. Talk about your stupid ******* backfiring edicts

Yeah, you must say the bit about discrimination for your marriage to be legal. Doesn't mean you can't say a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

[jmoo wan]

you could technically whisper it to the two witnesses at the end of you wanted.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Friends of mine had a post amble which i thought worked quite well, at the end of the bit about exclusion of all others simply said something like "kelly and Michael look forward to a future in which all couples are treated equally and with dignity" was the first time i'd heard people express their view in the ceremony.

Sounds word for word what my friend said. You don't know a Jen and Deane do you?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

This conversation has brought back the anger that I feel towards the fact Australia hasn't allowed SSM. What a disgrace.

 

[BombzrBlitz]

Oh pardon my blasphemy. Sometimes I forget to speak in a respectful tone because I think Christianity is a load of rubbish. And just to show that I'm being inclusive, I think all other religions are equally ridiculous.

Happy?

So you don't support inclusiveness and acceptance.. which is the under pinning of the purple bombers and IDAHOT day. hypocrisy.. you only support what you want to support.

 

[Doss]

What are you trying to prove here, exactly?

 

[doug85]

So you don't support inclusiveness and acceptance.. which is the under pinning of the purple bombers and IDAHOT day. hypocrisy.. you only support what you want to support.

Correct, I do only support what I want. I think deism is a total crock, it doesn't mean I discriminate against anyone because of their beliefs. I welcome people of any religious denomination into our club.

Disagreeing with somebody and accepting somebody aren't mutually exclusive concepts.