Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread

[dumb]

some other statements, for the record
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/new...ome-signatory-to-australian-marriage-equality
http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2017-09-20/cats-reaffirm-position-on-marriage-equality
http://www.goldcoastfc.com.au/news/2017-09-20/suns-pen-letter-for-marriage-equality
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-09-19/north-supports-marriage-equality
(dogs have a video, love is love/vote yes)

hawthorn:

Hawthorn Football Club embraces and welcomes all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality or cultural background.

The club celebrates diversity and demands equality, and also respects the rights of individuals to make their own personal choices and form their own opinions.

Hawthorn sees its role as providing an environment of respect, diversity and inclusivity where people can embrace their differences and unite in their love of the club and the game of AFL.

there's some subtle differences. we're pre-occupied with reminding people we're not telling them how to vote. the 'as such don't intend to campaign on the issue' sentence is a minefield and that bit could have easily been left out and the statement would have said the exact same thing.

THE Carlton Football Club prides itself on being inclusive, and a leader in engendering equality and a deep sense of belonging.

The issue of 'same sex marriage' is essentially one of equality; and so the Club encourages all of its people to have their say in this important national vote.

As a Club, we respect that this is about personal choice, but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination.

 

[ChrisKaias]

Tell me Chris ... are you taking the statement as written or are you looking at what wasn't in the statement or are you drawing conclusions from the statement?

You're a smart legal mind and look at evidence as it stands and then formulate a line of questioning from that. I'm just wondering if you have approached this the same way or have you had a more personal emotional response that you wouldn't normally have if you were just reading legal briefs?

Genuine question because I recognise how emotive this whole thing has been.

All of the above? If you want to put a legal analysis on it, when you analyse a contract you do so by reference to the 'text, context, and purpose'. What it says, what it doesn't say perhaps, and why it's being said.

If you're asking if it has caused a personal emotive response, of course it very clearly has. As I said elsewhere, just have a read of the Facebook comments on the club's statement, and check how emboldened homophobes and 'No' voters were by it.

Bad luck for the club that it came at the same day the AFL showed a spine and leadership on this issue, and after other clubs did also.

Quite possibly, the Blues have 'read the room'. We have a deeply conservative supporter base. This just stings because it felt like the clubs had made such great leaps forward. Anyway, I'm just one voice and the club won't miss me, I don't delude myself otherwise.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

there's a good reason for that...

- Whether you like it or not, there is more than one option.
- Many people come from different walks of life. They think differently, feel differently and act differently regardless of whether it's nature or nurture.
- All should have a freedom of choice. How they go about choosing or how they come to their final decision is the better judge of character.
- Whatever choice they make, they should be prepared to face whatever results or consequences come their way.

Voting 'YES' might expand on the freedom of choice (which I'm certainly for), but attacking those who vote 'NO' stands against it. Don't be so rude and just let them vote for what they personally prefer. Otherwise you're only adding fuel to the fire and driving a larger wedge between the two extremes.

 

[Jabba73]

The longer this is waiting for a resolution, the more bogged down in arguments about process it will become. This leads to people making their decision based on reactions to minor side issues, not the actual question.

The real issue at the heart of the matter gets lost in the noise.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

All of the above? If you want to put a legal analysis on it, when you analyse a contract you do so by reference to the 'text, context, and purpose'. What it says, what it doesn't say perhaps, and why it's being said.

If you're asking if it has caused a personal emotive response, of course it very clearly has. As I said elsewhere, just have a read of the Facebook comments on the club's statement, and check how emboldened homophobes and 'No' voters were by it.

Bad luck for the club that it came at the same day the AFL showed a spine and leadership on this issue, and after other clubs did also.

Quite possibly, the Blues have 'read the room'. We have a deeply conservative supporter base. This just stings because it felt like the clubs had made such great leaps forward. Anyway, I'm just one voice and the club won't miss me, I don't delude myself otherwise.

I haven't read the facebook response. I know that the club is damned every time they enter the political realm.

How they can say that SSM is an equality issue, refer to their own strong belief in equality and the removal of discrimination of any kind while also suggesting supporters vote, and still be misconstrued by the no voters is beyond me. They played the diplomacy game. They in no way suggested it was okay to vote no.

Hawks did the same but it read like a mission statement. They did not endorse the yes vote either and did not encourage their members to vote at all.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The longer this is waiting for a resolution, the more bogged down in arguments about process it will become. This leads to people making their decision based on reactions to minor side issues, not the actual question.

The real issue at the heart of the matter gets lost in the noise.

I hate seeing posts saying 'I was going to vote yes but now because of the bullying I'm voting no'. Either they are liars or don't understand the issue at all.

 

[ChrisKaias]

Hawks did the same but it read like a mission statement. They did not endorse the yes vote either and did not encourage their members to vote at all.

Hawks have flown under the radar because they didn't publicise their statement. It wasn't on Twitter, Facebook, anywhere except buried on their website. People just aren't aware of it.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

I do believe there is only one right answer. The only no vote that I would consider informed or valid is one by a gay person. Nobody should have the right to vote on the rights of another group. It's a terrible time.

Carlton however recognise it is what it is and strongly indicate their stance and encourage others to recognise equality while not wanting to join in the absolute shitfight going on everywhere at the moment.

This issue is about love and it isn't being argued that way.

I understand your point completely, but that is only your personal morality that thousands could share.

It can make a strong argument. But my view is that I wouldn't by any means take away anybody's choice of disapproval. If the 'NO' vote is there, it's there for a reason. Let one make their own choice and pay the price for it themselves. You make your bed, you sleep in it.

One doesn't tell a shoplifter not to shoplift before they do so. It's a choice (and one without much thought put into). The shoplifter will most likely suffer from the unpleasant consequences of doing such a thing.

Freedom of choice is a good way of separating the good and the bad. The clever and the idiotic. The sensible and the reckless.

What CARLTON did was IMO the right thing to do? And that is 'consider all aspects'.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Having said all that I'd be mortified if any of the likes on any of my posts in here was by a no voter who thinks I am tacitly supporting their right to vote no. Very sorry to have given you that opinion. I don't believe you have the right and this whole thing is a farce.

 

[Kismet]

No matter how many ways I try to interpret the club's statement, every time it is clearly supporting the 'yes' vote.

"The issue of 'same sex marriage' is essentially one of equality..."

"...but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

To me this is unequivocal.

Yes, it is being couched in diplomatic terms, and I think too many people are getting bogged down in semantics.


The club has made a statement and it is undoubtedly supportive of same sex marriage. Maybe people should focus on that, rather than placing too much significance on the wording.

 

[Chasing 17]

It's official, Mark LoGiudice hates all homosexuals and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Also the sky might be falling.

 

[Jindrrk]

Wow, you north supporters are still taking the Kelly news really bad, aren't you?

I'm all good....mocking the Tuggers is a hobby of mine for decades. Not sure where you get the relation of Kelly to mocking the Tigers though ;P

Nick Duigan seemed to of had a day out that day so seems I will go with that.

 

[fnm_just a man]

I'm sure people have read my views already on other forums but I won't be a member next year either.

Quite frankly also, the crap spouted above about Jamo having a gay brother and an 'agenda' is mind-boggling.

I could sit through the salary cap issues, the Pagan era, the Malthouse era, but this is a bridge too far for me and I'm ******* done.

Can I urge you not to walk away from it? That only means we've one less progressive mind at the club. Better to band together and gradually bring about change.

 

[Kismet]

Having said all that I'd be mortified if any of the likes on any of my posts in here was by a no voter who thinks I am tacitly supporting their right to vote no. Very sorry to have given you that opinion. I don't believe you have the right and this whole thing is a farce.

Absolutely this process is a farce, and is so fundamentally flawed it's beyond a joke.

Whilst I'm pissed off at the financial waste of the exercise, I'm far more riled by the fact that parliamentarians have been so gutless to not do their job and have a free vote, and that we have a completely unnecessary creation of division and hostility for tawdry political reasons.

This is so similar to how John Howard managed the republic vote it sickens me.

 

[F_therest]

I'm sure people have read my views already on other forums but I won't be a member next year either.

Quite frankly also, the crap spouted above about Jamo having a gay brother and an 'agenda' is mind-boggling.

I could sit through the salary cap issues, the Pagan era, the Malthouse era, but this is a bridge too far for me and I'm ******* done.

'but this is a bridge too far for me and i'm ****ing done'

Uhh what is a bridge too far exactly? Did you even read the club statement properly? It's not like they said we are against gay marriage.

 

[Kismet]

I'm all good....mocking the Tuggers is a hobby of mine for decades. Not sure where you get the relation of Kelly to mocking the Tigers though ;P

Nick Duigan seemed to of had a day out that day so seems I will go with that.

Don't think there was a particular turning point, but more that Richmond choked on the occasion, particularly at half-time.

And definitely go the Duigan path.

 

[F_therest]

The club has equality figured out, managed to upset supporters on all sides of the issue equally.

Regardless of our intention, not the result you want.

Annoys me reading all this 'outrage' on social media and forums...seriously who are these people?
Fly into a rage saying the club is 'pathetic' and that they won't renew their membership...even though the club said they support equality and a society free from discrimination, but also one where people have a choice.

Some people just like to rage about anything.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

The better question would be:

Would you prefer to support a Carlton that is INCLUSIVE or SELECTIVE?

You all jump the gun to think about the inclusiveness promoted from voting 'YES', but little do you understand the club's method of supporting each and every one of their fans (even those who disapprove of SSM). They would obviously encourage people to vote 'YES' for its greater advantages, but they wouldn't fight fire with fire when it comes to those who see differently.

I think exactly the same way.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'd like to think that equality means not discriminating against religious beliefs, even if I don't share those beliefs. The club may very well have couched their response because of their belief in equality and anti-discrimination, even though one group's equality is forcing them to discriminate against another group.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'm trying not to discriminate against the club.

 

[thylacine60]

bit racist

 

[TeeJay Blue]

Whatever the club hasn't mentioned in their statement remains as it is.
The fact is that they didn't turn their back on anybody. Certain supporters however, did!

They think just like me. There is no complete right or wrong answer, but rather one that makes more sense than the other.
Something I like to live by is:
It's not about what side of the fence one is on, it's about how far one is from the actual fence.

 

[LanceRomance]

They did

Evidence?

 

[Styxx]

It's not even a vote when you think about it......

 

[LanceRomance]

I'm sure people have read my views already on other forums but I won't be a member next year either.

Quite frankly also, the crap spouted above about Jamo having a gay brother and an 'agenda' is mind-boggling.

I could sit through the salary cap issues, the Pagan era, the Malthouse era, but this is a bridge too far for me and I'm ******* done.

Just because the club doesn't have its virtue signal turned all the way up to 11 doesn't mean they aren't supportive of their players and staff.

I am also glad the club haven't turned this in to a marketing exercise... I am sure many others feel the same.