Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bazal]

I'm homophobic and I still voted yes. I don't need a f**king excuse for how I feel.

Well clearly some people do. Otherwise they wouldn't be so vocal about voting no for ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the survey

 

[Bazal]

I think you'll find that 2 are called the 'Lyneham Les'.

I thought Lyneham Les was the coach...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I hope he hadnt spent the last 18 months at the club playing keno

Well that's where he met his missus. Coincidentally on the night he won.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

My wife got the message yesterday at 5:47 and i got mine at 5:49. Our numbers are nowhere near the same. That's a miracle how random it is to be 2 minutes apart.

Me personally i don't really give a shit about the texts or how they got my number. I am assuming it is illegal to do what they did if they acquired the numbers so the excuse needed to be about randomness?

I have already sent my response in last week but even if i got that text beforehand it wouldn't have changed my vote.

People can vote however they want, they are asked a question and they can answer what they like. Being shamed either way is f**king pathetic!

It might've been a false flag operation as well. No voters trying to make the Yes voters look like bullying merkins. See, it can be anyone's fault you want.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well clearly some people do. Otherwise they wouldn't be so vocal about voting no for ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the survey

When the no voters are being portrayed as merkins in order to win yes votes why wouldn't the shoe end up on the other foot? One thing that's true about politics is that dirty tactics end up coming back at you.

 

[Bazal]

When the no voters are being portrayed as merkins in order to win yes votes why wouldn't the shoe end up on the other foot? One thing that's true about politics is that dirty tactics end up coming back at you.

Well tbh they are merkins for a couple of reasons but my point is simply that if your excuse for voting no is basically "because I'm mildly annoyed by something or other" or "because of the evil left" or whatever other rubbish then either you're a homophobe who is desperate to cover it, or just a twat.

Plenty of people have reasons that are understandable, even if I disagree (eg religious folk), but plenty seem to voting no over petty bullshit and that's ridiculous. That's my point.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well tbh they are merkins for a couple of reasons

This is the attitude that is pushing people to support the No vote.

There is plenty of precedent for why not everyone should be entitled to the same rights. Children can't vote or drink or consent to sex. Men can't have pregnancies terminated. Non-indigenous people can't access welfare for indigenous people. There are rights that are clearly not intended for everyone, however the right to marry members of the same sex is denied to everyone. Not just the gays.

 

[Bazal]

This is the attitude that is pushing people to support the No vote.

Merkins will be merkins, I suppose. If something so small can push them to vote no, they were always going to do so, they just want an excuse when people inevitably call them on being homophobic. "I'm not a homophobe I just voted no because people annoyed me by calling me one!" Ridiculous.

I didn't vote yes because the No voters are largely made up of homophobic morons who annoy the shit out of me, I did it because it's the right thing to do.

There is plenty of precedent for why not everyone should be entitled to the same rights. Children can't vote or drink or consent to sex. Men can't have pregnancies terminated. Non-indigenous people can't access welfare for indigenous people. There are rights that are clearly not intended for everyone, however the right to marry members of the same sex is denied to everyone. Not just the gays.

And this is the point in every Pou argument where it becomes obvious you are just arguing because you want to argue. None of those things are remotely comparable. But you know that.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Merkins will be merkins, I suppose. If something so small can push them to vote no, they were always going to do so, they just want an excuse when people inevitably call them on being homophobic. "I'm not a homophobe I just voted no because people annoyed me by calling me one!" Ridiculous.

But these are people who weren't going to vote at all, and even if they did they didn't need to tell anyone about it. There's no shame in being homophobic. We don't choose our feelings.

I didn't vote yes because the No voters are largely made up of homophobic morons who annoy the shit out of me, I did it because it's the right thing to do.



And this is the point in every Pou argument where it becomes obvious you are just arguing because you want to argue. None of those things are remotely comparable. But you know that.

They're not comparable because those unequal rights are a reality. Same sex marriage is not.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

What was your take on rights in Australia pre-1967? Y'know when indigenous Australians could die for the country, but lacked several basic rights that others enjoyed. An until 1949 very few of them could vote. That was the reality back then. We changed it.

 

[Kornstar]

What was your take on rights in Australia pre-1967? Y'know when indigenous Australians could die for the country, but lacked several basic rights that others enjoyed. An until 1949 very few of them could vote. That was the reality back then. We changed it.

That isn't the same though. Marriage is a f**king piece of paper that is worthless. The only thing that allowing gay people to marry will bring is a higher divorce rate, not literally saving their lives like the Indigenous people.

Now, i voted yes because i don't give a shit what other people do and it doesn't harm me in the slightest that 2 people of legal age, regardless of gender want to marry each other.

I'm married because for some unknown reason it was important to my wife but i think marriage is a waste of money on a big party that could be better spent on getting people into the housing market rather than pissing it away.........

I equally do not believe it is my business how other people voted and if they voted no why should i judge them? This is not life and death though.........

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

That isn't the same though. Marriage is a f**king piece of paper that is worthless. The only thing that allowing gay people to marry will bring is a higher divorce rate, not literally saving their lives like the Indigenous people.

Now, i voted yes because i don't give a shit what other people do and it doesn't harm me in the slightest that 2 people of legal age, regardless of gender want to marry each other.

I'm married because for some unknown reason it was important to my wife but i think marriage is a waste of money on a big party that could be better spent on getting people into the housing market rather than pissing it away.........

I equally do not believe it is my business how other people voted and if they voted no why should i judge them? This is not life and death though.........

Sorry, I was following Pou's argument....and pointing out that just b/c some rights are a (present) reality and some aren't isn't necessarily a reason to say that those rights are not comparable.

 

[Bazal]

That isn't the same though. Marriage is a f**king piece of paper that is worthless.

To you maybe. Pretty much to me as well, for the record. I think marriage is an archaic convention...But it's not worthless to everyone, and it's not about the piece of paper itself but the right to be recognised under the law. As you said, it was important to your wife.

The only thing that allowing gay people to marry will bring is a higher divorce rate, not literally saving their lives like the Indigenous people.

Realistically it'll probably do a bit of both. It's a step towards greater acceptance. Plenty of young people who commit suicide do so in part because of their sexuality and the issues surrounding that, but again it's not really about either issue. It's more that these are people who have all the same rights as us under law but we're denying them equal status as people, in the same way Indigenous Australians were.

Now, i voted yes because i don't give a shit what other people do and it doesn't harm me in the slightest that 2 people of legal age, regardless of gender want to marry each other.

This is basically the view a decent person should have. I have a stake in this in that it affects some of my best mates, but even if I didn't I'd vote yes for this exact reason. That's why I believe it's so petty and ridiculous to vote no because of a text message (for example). Voting yes or no doesn't affect the person who's voting no, all it does is punish someone for having the audacity to be the subject of a campaign that mildly irritated this person. I can't understand that level of pettiness, honestly

I equally do not believe it is my business how other people voted and if they voted no why should i judge them? This is not life and death though.........

Yeah, I would never ask anyone how they voted, or expect them to tell me. But I also think if someone openly says (as so many are on social media) that they are going to vote/have voted no, they shouldn't get upset when people question that. Of course, the government should also never have put people in this position in the first place...

 

[Bazal]

Anyway there's more important things happening now.

What every Australian has been crying out for has finally happened. We can rejoice at last.

Matthew Wade has been dropped from the Aussie cricket side!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What was your take on rights in Australia pre-1967? Y'know when indigenous Australians could die for the country, but lacked several basic rights that others enjoyed. An until 1949 very few of them could vote. That was the reality back then. We changed it.

I don't think the past should be judged by the standards of the present. Obviously today indigenous Australians have more rights than others. I think the right thing would be for rights not to have any basis in ethnicity, and plenty of non-indigenous Australians are also at the bottom of society due to past injustices. Do they deserve more rights too?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I don't think the past should be judged by the standards of the present. Obviously today indigenous Australians have more rights than others. I think the right thing would be for rights not to have any basis in ethnicity, and plenty of non-indigenous Australians are also at the bottom of society due to past injustices. Do they deserve more rights too?

In the long run 'no', but in the short run some initiatives that help get people into education and employment, away from the alcohol soaked settlements etc are fine by me. Bugger of a problem to solve though. Won't happen in 10 years.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Realistically it'll probably do a bit of both. It's a step towards greater acceptance. Plenty of young people who commit suicide do so in part because of their sexuality and the issues surrounding that, but again it's not really about either issue. It's more that these are people who have all the same rights as us under law but we're denying them equal status as people, in the same way Indigenous Australians were.

Gay suicide certainly shouldn't have anything to do with it. The fundamental reason for resistance to homosexuality throughout history (including why we invented and embraced religions that persecuted the act) is because it is quite obviously 'wrong' to many people. Putting aside moral judgements, I mean it is wrong in the sense that the drive to procreate has been 'rewired' to something that makes people feel deeply uncomfortable. It is unsurprising that some of the people so rewired should also feel deeply uncomfortable by it.

So I understand homosexuality is no longer officially a mental illness but it was once aberrant enough that it was considered so. Were mental health professionals wrong then or are they wrong now? Either way how can you not see that people would resist something so disturbing from being celebrated via marriage?

And like you I voted Yes (no, really). But this is because my views of homosexuality, marriage and government are compatible with the Yes vote. But people with different views on either marriage or government could understandably and without malice vote No. It's their right and they don't deserve to be bullied.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

In the long run 'no', but in the short run some initiatives that help get people into education and employment, away from the alcohol soaked settlements etc are fine by me. Bugger of a problem to solve though. Won't happen in 10 years.

I agree totally, but aren't non-Indigenous members of the welfare class also entitled to extra support to free themselves from generational poverty? Or is their social status acceptable because wealthy members of their ethnic group balance them out?

 

[Bazal]

In the long run 'no', but in the short run some initiatives that help get people into education and employment, away from the alcohol soaked settlements etc are fine by me. Bugger of a problem to solve though. Won't happen in 10 years.

I had a really interesting conversation with an Indigenous bloke at work a while back.

The gist of it (and I'm fully prepared to be assaulted by any social media activists we may have here) was that he and his mates feel like there is a big victim complex in Indigenous society and that sometimes you've gotta let the past be the past because if you don't it damages the future.

It was kind of interesting to hear that from an Indigenous kid, because in some ways it smacks of some of the stuff that outsiders have said and immediately been hounded for. But at the risk of sounding insensitive it does make a certain kind of sense, although I'm not sure I agree entirely.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I agree totally, but aren't non-Indigenous members of the welfare class also entitled to extra support to free themselves from generational poverty? Or is their social status acceptable because wealthy members of their ethnic group balance them out?

I think it'd largely a matter of targeted policy. If you can effectively identify those people, sure. But the nature of their problems is often different, so the precise response might also be different.