Universal Love Purple Bombers

[BombzrBlitz]

If I've got it right, presumably Bombzrblitz is Christian, Catholic or whatever the "umbrella" term for someone of the Jesus-based God faith is, and is upset that the club appears to be supporting same sex marriage.
He's also drawn an extremely long bow by suggesting that because we currently don't know of any genetic markers that would indicate someone is homosexual, that it must therefore be a conscious choice made by an individual.

Strawman much? I never said the club was supporting SSM. I was only saying it is a hot issue and i cant help but feel those fans who oppose it are having there views slighty crushed by being shoehorned into a EFC LGBT initiative... not exactly inclusive.

I maybe christian, but i could easily just be a libertarian. Is it OK to ask if people are Gay? or presume they are gay? not sure if you would usually tolerate such a presumption?
As for the "long bow" well it is a complex mix. But a sole genetic factor "the gay gene" is simply not clear, for instance there is no real strict Homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but there is homosexuality and the reasons behind it are mixed factors, choice is one of those factors.. of course this may not apply to humans, but we are related to the animal kingdom, and many of its creatures precede us, atleast certainly not in the same way as a genetic marker identifies a person German, Chinese or Nigerian.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

 

[BombzrBlitz]

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

Well Australians dont appear to want it, otherwise Labour would have been voted in, and a consciousness vote put forward. The liberal party wants a plebiscite which is the most fairest and democratic way to get what people want... yet labour reject it. They want to override the populist view and undermine democracy by not letting people have a say.
I dont even think Shorten went to the election with SSM conscious vote as a mandate? Ill have to check..

 

[Don Won]

My sister (who is a lesbian) is against it. Mostly because she's against the whole concept of marriage though.

I'm pro SSM, everyone should have the right to suffer equally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maddogm]

Well Australians dont appear to want it, otherwise Labour would have been voted in, and a consciousness vote put forward. The liberal party wants a plebiscite which is the most fairest and democratic way to get what people want... yet labour reject it. They want to override the populist view and undermine democracy by not letting people have a say.
I dont even think Shorten went to the election with SSM conscious vote as a mandate? Ill have to check..

The plebiscite was an unnecessary excuse for hate mongering.
To summarise with a band tshirt:

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Strawman much? I never said the club was supporting SSM. I was only saying it is a hot issue and i cant help but feel those fans who oppose it are having there views slighty crushed by being shoehorned into a EFC LGBT initiative... not exactly inclusive.

I maybe christian, but i could easily just be a libertarian. Is it OK to ask if people are Gay? or presume they are gay? not sure if you would usually tolerate such a presumption?
As for the "long bow" well it is a complex mix. But a sole genetic factor "the gay gene" is simply not clear, for instance there is no real strict Homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but there is homosexuality and the reasons behind it are mixed factors, choice is one of those factors.. of course this may not apply to humans, but we are related to the animal kingdom, and many of its creatures precede us, atleast certainly not in the same way as a genetic marker identifies a person German, Chinese or Nigerian.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

I know this is a false equivalence to a fairly large degree, but do you think racists are feeling a bit shoehorned by the AFL, or by players who beseech their supporters to show respect?

 

[eth-dog]

Well Australians dont appear to want it, otherwise Labour would have been voted in, and a consciousness vote put forward. The liberal party wants a plebiscite which is the most fairest and democratic way to get what people want... yet labour reject it. They want to override the populist view and undermine democracy by not letting people have a say.
I dont even think Shorten went to the election with SSM conscious vote as a mandate? Ill have to check..

A plebiscite is basically a referendum which the government can ignore if it doesn't suit their policies. It isn't binding at all, how can you call it the fairest and most democratic way to get SSM legalized when there's literally something else that does the same thing but is legally binding for the government?

 

[Beerfish]

A plebiscite is basically a referendum which the government can ignore if it doesn't suit their policies. It isn't binding at all, how can you call it the fairest and most democratic way to get SSM legalized when there's literally something else that does the same thing but is legally binding for the government?

Also, it would cost a s**t tonne of money for something that really is just common sense.

 

[BombzrBlitz]

What are you trying to prove here, exactly?

Im not against LGBTIQA to speak about there cause in appropriate public forums etc.. Or the purple bombers to be Coterie.
I am against groups who have an agenda inside clubs preaching there ideology to other fans, in this case "values" which simply dont match everyone elses in the club, despite how unpopular there beliefs are.

This is a philosophical problem and not a anti LGBT one, it could be a Labour movement with special jumpers telling everyone has to support workers rights... or leaders of industry.... saying we have to support reducing company tax to make a better country... and i would still be of the same opinion.

For instance i am against the anti-gambling stance by the EFC, (despite my self despising gambling) years ago they where sponsored by sports bet and had dodgy gambling groups like bomber bet, and now they have anti gambling but own poker machines and play in a league which draws alot of $$ from gambling? do they care about gambling or do they care about appearance? if they cared about the gambling they would demand zero revenue from gambling, to truely be a righteous club... the truth is it is driven by marketing to tap into a sentiment that is "popular" in the hope it gets more fans.

The most cohesive position is to simply not make Political or social statements (with the exception of ones that are already in common law... it goes with out saying that EFC would never support Racism.. it is part of law, And thats where these things are sorted out, parliament and the courts etc... thats why there is no racism round for instance.. it goes with out saying... its law... same applies to LGBTIQA rights.. they have all the same rights except 1 of marriage, and EFC is not the place to push SSM wouldn't you agree?)

And if you say awareness... if people dont know not to insult or assault people for there beliefs then they are lost to begin with, infact the LGBTIQA is a passive assault on others beliefs with in the club in its posturing.

And for the club to give such a platform is to essentially say to all other members, your values dont count, we abide by this other groups values.

Sure the club has values pertaining to playing football, managing the club etc.. But most if not all are backed by common law.
Clubs they are not here to tell people (fans) how there values ought look, and that is what is happening when you promote such initiatives like this.
Political and social values should not be a feature of AFL or EFC, its simply not the role of the club or the AFL.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Im not against LGBTIQA to speak about there cause in appropriate public forums etc.. Or the purple bombers to be Coterie.
I am against groups who have an agenda inside clubs preaching there ideology to other fans, in this case "values" which simply dont match everyone elses in the club, despite how unpopular there beliefs are.

This is a philosophical problem and not a anti LGBT one, it could be a Labour movement with special jumpers telling everyone has to support workers rights... or leaders of industry.... saying we have to support reducing company tax to make a better country... and i would still be of the same opinion.

For instance i am against the anti-gambling stance by the EFC, (despite my self despising gambling) years ago they where sponsored by sports bet and had dodgy gambling groups like bomber bet, and now they have anti gambling but own poker machines and play in a league which draws alot of $$ from gambling? do they care about gambling or do they care about appearance? if they cared about the gambling they would demand zero revenue from gambling, to truely be a righteous club... the truth is it is driven by marketing to tap into a sentiment that is "popular" in the hope it gets more fans.

The most cohesive position is to simply not make Political or social statements (with the exception of ones that are already in common law... it goes with out saying that EFC would never support Racism.. it is part of law, And thats where these things are sorted out, parliament and the courts etc... thats why there is no racism round for instance.. it goes with out saying... its law... same applies to LGBTIQA rights.. they have all the same rights except 1 of marriage, and EFC is not the place to push SSM wouldn't you agree?)

And if you say awareness... if people dont know not to insult or assault people for there beliefs then they are lost to begin with, infact the LGBTIQA is a passive assault on others beliefs with in the club in its posturing.

And for the club to give such a platform is to essentially say to all other members, your values dont count, we abide by this other groups values.

Sure the club has values pertaining to playing football, managing the club etc.. But most if not all are backed by common law.
Clubs they are not here to tell people (fans) how there values ought look, and that is what is happening when you promote such initiatives like this.
Political and social values should not be a feature of AFL or EFC, its simply not the role of the club or the AFL.

I don't personally agree with you but kudos on the clear explanation of your views

 

[BombzrBlitz]

A plebiscite is basically a referendum which the government can ignore if it doesn't suit their policies. It isn't binding at all, how can you call it the fairest and most democratic way to get SSM legalized when there's literally something else that does the same thing but is legally binding for the government?

They cant ignore it, it still has to be voted on, and any politician voting against whichever motion by the australian public is more popular (for or against) on personal opinion would be a scumbag of the highest order and would most likely never see out a term in parliament again.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I know this is a false equivalence to a fairly large degree

Seems to be the theme of the discussion at this point anyway.

Well Australians dont appear to want it, otherwise Labour would have been voted in, and a consciousness vote put forward. The liberal party wants a plebiscite which is the most fairest and democratic way to get what people want... yet labour reject it. They want to override the populist view and undermine democracy by not letting people have a say.
I dont even think Shorten went to the election with SSM conscious vote as a mandate? Ill have to check..

Bzzzt.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...has-grown-since-election-essential-poll-shows

Majority support for SSM. Majority opposition to a plebiscite. These numbers are returned reliably across polling companies, and have been for some time.

In any case, the position against a plebiscite is simple enough - it is not necessary. If our elected representatives are unable to reflect the well-established will of the Australian people without staging a hundred-million-dollar opinion poll, what is their purpose at all?

The most cohesive position is to simply not make Political or social statements (with the exception of ones that are already in common law... it goes with out saying that EFC would never support Racism.. it is part of law, And thats where these things are sorted out, parliament and the courts etc... thats why there is no racism round for instance.. it goes with out saying... its law... same applies to LGBTIQA rights.. they have all the same rights except 1 of marriage, and EFC is not the place to push SSM wouldn't you agree?)

Legality is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right. Meanwhile, sitting tight and saying nothing simply allows injustice to persist.

 

[eth-dog]

They cant ignore it, it still has to be voted on, and any politician voting against whichever motion by the australian public is more popular (for or against) on personal opinion would be a scumbag of the highest order and would most likely never see out a term in parliament again.

They can, and will, ignore it if it doesn't suit their agenda.

Wrong. If Kelly O'Dwyer voted against it she would still be member for Higgins. Those in marginal seats would be unlikely to be reelected but you're kidding yourself for those in safe seats.

Go look up what a referendum is. It's basically a legally binding plebiscite.

 

[DERO]

The "same sex marriage devalues marriage for straight people" argument is such a crock of s**t.

 

[Lore]

The "same sex marriage devalues marriage for straight people" argument is such a crock of s**t.

I like it, especially in conjunction with Lance's rant about marriage being a transaction between two families. That women as chattel idea is really special and worth preserving huh...

 

[DERO]

I like it, especially in conjunction with Lance's rant about marriage being a transaction between two families. That women as chattel idea is really special and worth preserving huh...

I'd like a retrospective dowry. This would make up for the friends of my wife's parents that I had to pay for at my wedding as well as every second Christmas.

 

[Lore]

I'd like a retrospective dowry. This would make up for the friends of my wife's parents that I had to pay for at my wedding as well as every second Christmas.

I guess that beats a bride price.

 

[DERO]

I guess that beats a bride price.

I really should go back and read the last few pages for context but there are too many words.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Americans have been celebrating gays,lesbians and same sex marriage for years it's time for Australia to do the same and legalise same sex marriage. we are so behind when it comes to these things.

 

[Donakebab]

There is a difference between late '60s and 1990, though.

Which is not to downplay how disgusting the flora and fauna classification of Aboriginal people was, but that fact it was taken away in the late 1960s fits what else we know about Australian history (particularly things like granting them the vote finally, and the winding down/ending of the White Australia Policy).

This is classifying sexuality as a disease. Really think about that.

It defies belief that this was still the case in 1990 for mine, in a global and supposedly non-political organisation ostensibly about promoting health (of which acceptance and tolerance of innate things like sexuality is a part).

Equally as baffling and quite frankly disgusting, it was only 20 years ago that homosexuality was finally decriminalised in every state in Australia. Even then it took the High Court to drag a kicking and screaming Tasmania into line. People really aren't aware of just how far we have come as a country in such a short period of time. I mean think about how backwards this sounds, up until 1949 in Victoria people found guilty of sodomy could face the death penalty.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...ates-decriminalise-male-homosexuality/6719702

 

[Aeglos]

I like it, especially in conjunction with Lance's rant about marriage being a transaction between two families. That women as chattel idea is really special and worth preserving huh...

How many Camels Fly worth?

 

[1061]

Why is it that the purple bombers FB page looks more like a shop than a supporters group?

 

[DERO]

Why is it that the purple bombers FB page looks more like a shop than a supporters group?

The purple beanie is rad.

 

[BombzrBlitz]

They can, and will, ignore it if it doesn't suit their agenda.

Wrong. If Kelly O'Dwyer voted against it she would still be member for Higgins. Those in marginal seats would be unlikely to be reelected but you're kidding yourself for those in safe seats.

Go look up what a referendum is. It's basically a legally binding plebiscite.

A plebiscite is a proposition in a question voted on by the public and then put back to there constitutes(member of parliament).
Im not sure if the data will be shown to the members if there seat was more pro or con SSM. (i think that should be confidential IMO) something for AEC to look at.
If it is shown (the data), i can see member voting as per there constituencies... to protect there own skin.. or not if they care about democracy.
But if it is not... i can see it voted on popular opinion.

And i cant see a better way for SSM to be come part of law, that with proper democratic acceptance. Sure it is a risk for LGBTIQA... that it is denied...where to from there?? i dont know?

But.. LGBT get it by conscience vote... no one who rejected it would ever think they got it fairly or democratically, they would have a undercurrent of distrust to deal with.

There is a certain concession that comes from those that oppose it when it is voted upon fairly and above board you dont get with a conscience vote in parliament.

I think the LGBTIQA is crazy for not taking the plebiscite. I think it would pass in favour.. there lack of faith in the australian public is disturbing.

 

[tesla1962]

there lack of faith in the australian public is disturbing.

I have no idea why they would have a lack of faith in the Australian public. Can you think of any reasons?

 

[BombzrBlitz]

Seems to be the theme of the discussion at this point anyway.

Bzzzt.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...has-grown-since-election-essential-poll-shows

Majority support for SSM. Majority opposition to a plebiscite. These numbers are returned reliably across polling companies, and have been for some time.

Isnt that a self contradiction? maybe it says more about the electorate.

In any case, the position against a plebiscite is simple enough - it is not necessary. If our elected representatives are unable to reflect the well-established will of the Australian people without staging a hundred-million-dollar opinion poll, what is their purpose at all?

Because there is no mandate, you never asked your constituencies if they wanted SSM, they will feel you lied to them and you lose you spot in parliament.
Also, millions of dollars should never get in the way of democracy. If you think "saving money" is more important, the you are lost.

Legality is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right. Meanwhile, sitting tight and saying nothing simply allows injustice to persist.

I agree, and currently the best filter for what is right is democracy, and nothing is more democratic than a plebiscite.