Random NON FOOTY thoughts not worthy of a thread: Edition II

[Hearts to hearts]

The stupidity of the no voters sentiment toward the yes vote, in that example gains no traction . It's clearly moronic.

The yes voters cliche of equality is not political correctness is more tactful but equally as ineffective from an influential perspective.

I'm just so sick of the overall level of forceful political correctness in general.



On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or, as we used to call it, treating other people with respect. The golden rule, doing unto others, all that. I don't understand when being nasty to people became a reasonable thing to do, and being nice was somehow wrong.

People can't be made to be "politically correct" - or polite - but I don't know why so many seem to feel they can only stand up for their right to self-expression by being as unpleasant as possible.

I haven't yet heard an argument for no that wasn't, at its base, because marriage equality would give people the idea that you could be as good a husband/wife/parent if you were gay as if you were straight, and we can't allow that idea. So, yeah, kind of bigoted.

And the only reason anyone is talking about all these other issues is because if they actually argued in the point being voted on they know they would have no chance.

 

[rickety]

Over the past few months, my little boy Archie, and myself have spent a bit of time on monday mornings throwing rocks, stones, sticks etc into whatever river takes our fancy. Recently I have introduced "skimmers" to him. He is almost 3. Anyway, he can lob a fat old rock off a bridge into the Tambo or Avon rivers, from a bridge 15m above and ask "skimmer dad?". "Almost" I tell him. Anyway, this morning when we were driving back from changing the flow direction of the Mitchell river, and the little kid throws his empty bottle at me - as he usually does - it hits my arm, the steering wheel, dash board and finally ends up on the floor. "Skimmer dad" he shouts! Funny little kid :-D

 

[big_e]

The stupidity of the no voters sentiment toward the yes vote, in that example gains no traction . It's clearly moronic.

The yes voters cliche of equality is not political correctness is more tactful but equally as ineffective from an influential perspective.

I'm just so sick of the overall level of forceful political correctness in general.



On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Same here. Can't stand political correctness and the nanny state, governments trying to tell us how to behave and what we can and can't do. It's why I believe in small government - get them out of the way and let us do what we want to do.

It's why I believe it's also not the government's job to decide who can and can't get married. That's why I voted yes.

 

[Royal Flush]

Clearly most Australians are voting Yes, what exactly are the NO voters arguments?
Besides the homophobic and religious doctrines.
We all know what hetro, married and divorced men get upto in Pattaya.


On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Only Forwards]

what exactly are the NO voters arguments?
Besides the homophobic and religious doctrines.

There aren't any decent no arguments that I've found.

None that really stack up.

Even the religious side depends almost entirely on what part of the book you want to emphasise.

Even my religious mother is voting yes, simply because the part of religion that she listens to is the 'do unto others' more than 'the God hates you if you don't hate those people' type stuff.

Some of the parts of the Bible that talk about homosexuality, also contain things about it being righteous to own slaves, not eating shellfish, selling you daughter.

I mean the text has huge elements that as a species we've move well beyond. The stuff on homosexuality is just another element of the bible that we need to evolve beyond.

 

[North Viking]

I undertook the process of having a conversation with my parents about the vote. They are in the zone for automatic No vote. Old, rural background, religious, closet racist, xenophobic, homophobic... they tick all the boxes largely through ignorance, not because they have any real world experience with people outside of their bubble.

Had the long, arduous process of breaking down every argument they used to justify feeling like they had any right to interfere with what complete strangers do with their life. My mother was an easy convert, she gave the flimsy excuses first but then I said her prejudices justified the treatment her side of the family received at the hands of a different set of people who had prejudices against her family, her people. She knew one neighbour who was gay who was always nice to her and she knew he got screwed over because the system didn't recognise their relationship when his partner passed away.

My father is a harder nut to crack because he is stubborn to the point of being stubborn in general because he never wants to admit he is wrong about anything. Not sure if I can get him to make the leap to be a better human being and having some empathy with people that he would otherwise be actively interfering with their lives. However, I feel it is my duty as a reasonable human being and citizen to do everything in my power to get him to do the right thing.

I could refuse to mail his vote, given I do all their mailing for them, but I think it is critical that we move forwards without resorting to any means, it should be a conscious awakening for our country and if it fails we need to spend more time, effort and energy addressing the ignorance. I don't feel anyone who would vote no has any legitimate reason to do so and typically do so due to indoctrination and a lack of education rather than a malevolent reason, ignorance can be vanquished through education, we just haven't tried hard enough to educate the demographic that stands in the way of progress.

Good on you for trying. I too tried with my in laws last night. My mum is pretty liberal so she's all good to vote yes. But the in laws are very very religious. Attend church 3 times a week without fail and I struggle to have a serious conversation with them on any issues. Rose coloured glasses. In the end I said that they have 5 grand children. 3 lovely girls from my end. I explained that in time we don't know now the choices our children will make and that I would be a supportive and loving parent no matter what! I asked them would they let there staunch opinions get in the way of their right to form a legal union and to be happy.
They both looked at me blankly! I further went to say if Jesus was roaming the earth today do you honestly believe he would show love, empathy and tolerance towards all his fellow people. Do you think he would judge them? Again a blank look.
They had nothing to counter this. I don't know if I've changed their vote but at the very least I've made them think. If not about the church and its doctrine but the affect it may have on the people they love.

 

[rickety]

I remember having a lop sided conversation with my sister and her husband about, but not really, religion. They are entirely devout Baptists and I do not understand religion, or rather, I don't get it. Anyway, Christmas dinner brought out the old topic of beliefs and stuff, and being a history fan, as well as a frequent visitor to Sweden, I piped up with that I liked all of your Viking Gods. After all, I was born on a thursday - Thorsdag - named after the great hammer weilding Thor - and Loki, the old Viking god of mischief has a great deal of appeal, well, cheeky appeal .... etc etc. They then both, almost at the same time, came at me with "well you just can't believe stuff from a book".

All that said, this was meant as a relay of a conversation at a dinner table, and in no way as an insult to anyone on here, or their families, or any or all of the gods that they may or may not choose to follow, revere, pray, sacrifice or donate to.

 

[Royal Flush]

There aren't any decent no arguments that I've found.

None that really stack up.

Even the religious side depends almost entirely on what part of the book you want to emphasise.

Even my religious mother is voting yes, simply because the part of religion that she listens to is the 'do unto others' more than 'the God hates you if you don't hate those people' type stuff.

Some of the parts of the Bible that talk about homosexuality, also contain things about it being righteous to own slaves, not eating shellfish, selling you daughter.

I mean the text has huge elements that as a species we've move well beyond. The stuff on homosexuality is just another element of the bible that we need to evolve beyond.

That's pretty much inline with the religious No voters.
I'm not bashing anyone for their beliefs.
But I was asking if anyone knows the arguments that the non religious , non homophobes are presenting that are for the No vote.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Outlaw]

Just dropped my YES vote into the post box and no Homer, it didn't give me gay!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Only Forwards]

That's pretty much inline with the religious No voters.
I'm not bashing anyone for their beliefs.
But I was asking if anyone knows the arguments that the non religious , non homophobes are presenting that are for the No vote.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

The only other argument I've seen is centred around procreation. That family is centred around a mother and a father.

IMHO that line of thinking is also dated. My wife has no biological tie to my son yet she is as much of a mother to him as his biological mother is. The idea of family has changed.

Family comes in many forms and so long as the basis is love and respect then does it really matter what a person's sexuality is?

I'd argue that there is far far more important things to focus on when raising a child than the fact that their parents may be the same sex.

For instance, does your child barrack for North and if not why not?

 

[Tectonic]

The only other argument I've seen is centred around procreation. That family is centred around a mother and a father.

IMHO that line of thinking is also dated. My wife has no biological tie to my son yet she is as much of a mother to him as his biological mother is. The idea of family has changed.

Family comes in many forms and so long as the basis is love and respect then does it really matter what a person's sexuality is?

I'd argue that there is far far more important things to focus on when raising a child than the fact that their parents may be the same sex.

For instance, does your child barrack for North and if not why not?

Yeah the 'child needs a mum and dad' argument is absolutrly indefensible in a society that is also accepting of divorce and seperation.
I'd go so far as to say almost half the people I grew up with had a seperated family. Once I turned 9 I didn't see my father for another 11 years.
Didn't cause me any issues.. well except I had to re-educate my mum to switch from pies to roos.
People grow and become adults under all sorts of structures, theres no 'wrong' way to be brought up, as long as the age old tenet 'don't be a w***er' is followed.

 

[goalieboy82]

so if the world ends on Saturday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...blical-doomsday-claim/?utm_term=.828d84b9cb37

Spoiler

 

[Firestarter]

Fine by me.

 

[Saintly_]

Clearly most Australians are voting Yes

Clearly most Americans were voting Clinton over Trump too.

Just sayin'

 

[Firestarter]

Clearly most Americans were voting Clinton over Trump too.

Just sayin'

Just gonna point out that to my knowledge this is purely a numerical vote rather than a provincial vote.

 

[Saintly_]

Just gonna point out that to my knowledge this is purely a numerical vote rather than a provincial vote.

It's not even a vote, it's a non-compulsory survey.

All I'm saying there might be a silent majority out there, but I strongly suspect not.

Be great if yes is the majority and Cabinet does then consider it.

 

[jimandphilbadge]

On the upside, our younger son is at an all boys Catholic school that couldn't be more warm and inclusive. They had a photo of my partner and I with our son in the school magazine after the Mothers Day breakfast.

There is certainly still way too much crap around but it's important to know how far we've come along as well. Not sure the no side understands just how much things have changed for most people. I hope the extent of the invective reflects that deep down they know this is a last desperate attempt.

Great posts by both. Earlier on in this, for lack of better word, campaign, I was of the mindset of "well it doesn't affect me, people can do what they want, so I'll vote Yes because of equal rights for all". But at the probing of my partner, I listened a bit more to both sides, and am a bit more open than the mindset of "well it doesn't affect me" as it certainly affects some people I care about.

I had a discussion with one family member who will never change from No, just to see where they were coming from. Their biggest gripe I think is that he feels he isn't being listened to. For me it's a bizarre situation as 2 of their least favourite Australians are Howard and Abbott; they're completely pro-refugee, pro-science, etc; the only one of their siblings from a very large family they still talks to is openly gay; for most things they'd be labelled a "progressive"; and in most part they're one of the most "fair go for everyone" people I've ever met. In this instance, for them they feel like they are being forced to participate in something that makes them feel uncomfortable. I think they were glad I did listen and didn't call them a homophobe like one of my siblings does, even though I completely disagreed with their point of view. I asked them to show some empathy for people it truly affects, and perhaps pay attention to a LGBTI person who isn't Richard Reid on the tv when they're buying a coffee and listen to the issues that they air.

As for the vote itself I know I'm just anonymous internet stranger to most of you, but I did write Yes as did my partner. She wanted to take a photo of us mailing it. I was still in the mindset of "who cares what I mail?" However she sent the photo to a few LGBTI friends and the replies from them was heartening - their appreciation at our support was humbling in that it just isn't something that has no affect in my little bubble.

 

[jimandphilbadge]

On the upside, our younger son is at an all boys Catholic school that couldn't be more warm and inclusive. They had a photo of my partner and I with our son in the school magazine after the Mothers Day breakfast.

There is certainly still way too much crap around but it's important to know how far we've come along as well. Not sure the no side understands just how much things have changed for most people. I hope the extent of the invective reflects that deep down they know this is a last desperate attempt.

These posts got me thinking about the school I went to and how attitudes have changed. I attended an all boys Catholic School in the 90s, and when one of my mates came out year just after year 12 (who was the first person I knew who actually announced it) he told me one of the most supportive people during school was one of the Religious Brothers. Basically along the lines of there was no shame and come out when you’re ready. As the years have passed he said that Brother X would occasionally touch base to see how he was going. And I only put it together today (yeah, I’m slow!) but I remember Brother X hearing one of my classmates call another a f-g, and how he quickly hauled this guy out of class and made it known these kind of insults were not on. One of those things you don’t read into at the time, but he saw no place for it

I don’t have anything to do with the old school, but I have been told there’s a few kids over the years that have come out whilst still at school and they’ve been supported by the school. No doubt no easy around a bunch of teenage boys, but glad the support system is there.

 

[ferball]

so if the world ends on Saturday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...blical-doomsday-claim/?utm_term=.828d84b9cb37

Spoiler

Another one? I've survived a few of these. That thing mentioned Niburu/Planet X.

I played footy with a guy who believed in the first Niburu/Planet X smashing into earth date in 21C. It was sposed to happen back on May 15th 2003. He brought some land in the great dividing range to survive the alleged pole shift that would happen then spent a fortune preparing a Doomsday bunker and headed out there in early May. This was a big deal because someone called "Nancy Lieder" was channelling aliens from Zeta reticulai or some such place and they wanted to save at least some of humanity (* knows why). More likely Nancy was channeling coke on behalf of Los Zetas and maybe had too much but anyway.

On May the 15th the US Military launched "Operation Planet X" as part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which shows that if nothing else whoever names US military ops has a sense of humour. Or the illuminati does. So afterward he copped a bit of the "So Nancy Lied ... er what you gonna do now?"

Its actually lucky for my mate that nothing happened cos he's a Port supporter and if the world had ended he would have missed them winning a flag the next year.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

And North officially joins the yes campaign today. Better later than never!
http://m.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-09-19/north-supports-marriage-equality

 

[kangaspurs]

That's pretty much inline with the religious No voters.
I'm not bashing anyone for their beliefs.
But I was asking if anyone knows the arguments that the non religious , non homophobes are presenting that are for the No vote.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

There seems to be two arguments that they always use, both of which are fundamentally flawed. It seems that these mostly come from religious types as well who initially used the Christian teachings as justification for 'no' until they realised that they just don't hold any weight in a secular society.

The first is the right of children to a mother and father and the use of illegitimate, bias and thoroughly debunked sources to prove that children in same-sex households fare worse than children in a traditional family. This argument is completely irrelevant; not only is the question not about children - it's solely about marriage - but same-sex couples are already allowed to adopt and many have children as it stands. The proposed change isn't going to affect that and, if anything, allowing these couples to marry would only be beneficial to the children in these families. And that's before you even point to single parent, or other adoptive families as evidence that some children of opposite-sex relationships in Australia have already been 'deprived' of their mother or father through natural, or otherwise, means.

Then you get the 'research' pointed to by people like Lyle Shelton and those horrific posters that were plastered all over Sydney and Melbourne a few weeks ago that suggest that children of same-sex relationships fare worse than children of opposite-sex relationships. However, this position is in the minority and those particular papers were produced by 'Christian researchers,' obviously with a vested interest. The majority of research in fact points to the exact opposite; that children of same-sex relationships fare equally, or even better, than children of opposite sex relationships.

The other argument often wheeled out by the more intellectual, albeit still religious, types (is that an oxymoron?) is that marriage between a man and a woman has been a sacred institution across a number of different societies in the 'Western culture' for more than a thousand years and that shouldn't be changed in order to preserve that tradition. The problem with that is that any law or institution changes over the decades and centuries in order to reflect things like advances in technology, research, and changing societal values and expectations and marriage has been no different in this respect. The highest of Western society, royalty, used to marry incestuously to keep their blood lines pure or to form alliances; women could be legally raped by their spouses as marriage was considered a form of consent; it was once frowned upon, and in some places prohibited to marry interracially as black people were considered 'less than human;' and the introduction of the principle of no-fault divorce are all examples of how the institution of marriage has fundamentally changed and the list goes on and on, they're only a few.

In any case, this notion that marriage is the bedrock of Western culture is wrong. In fact, the one value that underpins a free and democratic society is actually equality. It's equality that provides for freedom of speech (my voice is no more or less important than yours), it's the principle of equality that makes my vote in democratic elections worth just as much as the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader, it's equality that stopped black people having to ride separate buses or use separate toilets from white people, it's equality that allowed women to vote, that recognized Aboriginals as Australian citizens, and that decriminalised sexual relations between same-sex couple (a change that, disgracefully, happened less than 20 years ago in some states). In Australia marriage is not a religious union, it is a legal one and comes with a number of different rights and privileges under the law. And as it stands, this is a union that is denied to a significant number of Australians because of their sexual identity. In other words, it is state sponsored descrimination; inequality enshrined in law. it undermines the very value that we considered to be so central to a free and democratic society. And that's precisely why I voted 'yes' and why I encourage everyone to do likewise.

 

[Royal Flush]

There seems to be two arguments that they always use, both of which are fundamentally flawed. It seems that these mostly come from religious types as well who initially used the Christian teachings as justification for 'no' until they realised that they just don't hold any weight in a secular society.

The first is the right of children to a mother and father and the use of illegitimate, bias and thoroughly debunked sources to prove that children in same-sex households fare worse than children in a traditional family. This argument is completely irrelevant; not only is the question not about children - it's solely about marriage - but same-sex couples are already allowed to adopt and many have children as it stands. The proposed change isn't going to affect that and, if anything, allowing these couples to marry would only be beneficial to the children in these families. And that's before you even point to single parent, or other adoptive families as evidence that some children of opposite-sex relationships in Australia have already been 'deprived' of their mother or father through natural, or otherwise, means.

Then you get the 'research' pointed to by people like Lyle Shelton and those horrific posters that were plastered all over Sydney and Melbourne a few weeks ago that suggest that children of same-sex relationships fare worse than children of opposite-sex relationships. However, this position is in the minority and those particular papers were produced by 'Christian researchers,' obviously with a vested interest. The majority of research in fact points to the exact opposite; that children of same-sex relationships fare equally, or even better, than children of opposite sex relationships.

The other argument often wheeled out by the more intellectual, albeit still religious, types (is that an oxymoron?) is that marriage between a man and a woman has been a sacred institution across a number of different societies in the 'Western culture' for more than a thousand years and that shouldn't be changed in order to preserve that tradition. The problem with that is that any law or institution changes over the decades and centuries in order to reflect things like advances in technology, research, and changing societal values and expectations and marriage has been no different in this respect. The highest of Western society, royalty, used to marry incestuously to keep their blood lines pure or to form alliances; women could be legally raped by their spouses as marriage was considered a form of consent; it was once frowned upon, and in some places prohibited to marry interracially as black people were considered 'less than human;' and the introduction of the principle of no-fault divorce are all examples of how the institution of marriage has fundamentally changed and the list goes on and on, they're only a few.

In any case, this notion that marriage is the bedrock of Western culture is wrong. In fact, the one value that underpins a free and democratic society is actually equality. It's equality that provides for freedom of speech (my voice is no more or less important than yours), it's the principle of equality that makes my vote in democratic elections worth just as much as the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader, it's equality that stopped black people having to ride separate buses or use separate toilets from white people, it's equality that allowed women to vote, that recognized Aboriginals as Australian citizens, and that decriminalised sexual relations between same-sex couple (a change that, disgracefully, happened less than 20 years ago in some states). In Australia marriage is not a religious union, it is a legal one and comes with a number of different rights and privileges under the law. And as it stands, this is a union that is denied to a significant number of Australians because of their sexual identity. In other words, it is state sponsored descrimination; inequality enshrined in law. it undermines the very value that we considered to be so central to a free and democratic society. And that's precisely why I voted 'yes' and why I encourage everyone to do likewise.

Agree with that and you spent time explaining that. Covering the context of both sides without venum albeit with the influence of your side.
I do disagree with the point about raising children. There is undisputed evidence that children fare better with a mother and father.
Even nature is positioned this way.
I also believe a woman and a man who can not bare children together should be a priority for adoption, well ahead of any other couple.





On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RobZombie]

That's absolutely awesome and sounds like a very progressive catholic school. If the shepherd is struggling to change perhaps the sheep can influence the shepherd to change.

I think that is in fact happening. I was chatting to the rector of one of the big Catholic schools the other day - the one that made the papers for "defying" the Church. Certainly his public position seems to be very much influenced by the overwhelming support on campus, and he's entirely comfortable with the view that marriage is a civil matter and welcoming people of all sexual and gender identities is consistent with the Christian ethos.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I made the mistake of reading the comments on the north Facebook announcement about joining the Yes campaign.

Dear God we have some bigots in our midst. Thank God they won't be renewing their memberships.

 

[RobZombie]

Political correctness forced down our throats and people who wish to vote no, are socially condemned and humiliated for their views and painted with the same brush as a racist, homophobe and sexist.

So who is it that you'd like to insult, belittle and disrespect that you're currently not allowed to? Let it all out.