Margaret Court.. were the project hosts disgraceful?

[Blue_boost]

Margaret Court went on the project show and tried to voice her opinions on Gay Marriage. Her position is that it should be left alone and that marriage is a union between man and woman primarily to facilitate the up bringing of children. Also its supposed to be a permanent reunion, not change with the wind. That is also the position of the law.

But the project panellists wouldn't let her get a word in and tried to mock her views. Was it disgraceful that someone who was just reaffirming the current law and centuries of tradition gets bullied on TV? even calling for the Margaret court to be renamed?

I don't think anyone has a problem with Gay people (nor do I), but both sides of this debate should be heard without trying to close down the other side, respectfully and not shaming or labelling those as homophobic that choose to defend the current state of law.

Does Marriage mean that much to the Gay community to get it changed? To be committed to someone doesn't mean that you need to be married to them? Im not sure what the Gay community is missing out on?

Its like a 5 foot man saying why cant I play centre in the NBA? Or someone that is 75 years old wanting to play in the NRL and being denied. Or what if a group of 3 people want to get married? where does it all stop?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...m/news-story/d37bfec727e22f8cf98e4f76abcc530e

Disclaimer: I have nothing against Gay community, short men, 75 year old people or people who want a relationship in group of 3

 

[Wahesh]

I didn't see it, but I know how disrespectful Carrie is (let's face it, she's a bitch), but I can tell you this. If I was sitting beside Margaret Court with that interview. I wouldn't let THEM get a word in. As much as Carrie is FOR this shit, I am AGAINST it. They would cut us off for how passionate I would be.

Again, I'm not against the LGBT people, just against gay marriage.

 

[CaptainJackson]

1. John Howard changed the law so SSM couldn't happen

2. The bible also says women shouldn't be heard, why is Margaret Court picking and choosing which verses of the bible she believes in? She shouldn't be heard according to the nonsense she believes in

3. Does this mean we should also sit down and have a discussion with "flat earthers" and hear their view points? Or how about people who believe in leprechauns? Or how about those that believe in fairies?

4. You have NO EVIDENCE to say that gay people do not have a life long union, that's just baseless homophobic garbage

5. There are many people, approximately 40% of the Australian population according to the last statistics bureau performed in 2009, that don't believe in the fairy tales she believes in. If she takes a book, which 40% of the population don't believe in, as her "evidence" then by all means she deserves to be mocked, she entertains no actual REAL EVIDENCE OR FACTS

 

[CroydonDog]

I doubt this thread will last long before the usual suspect come along, hurl abuse, and it gets shut down.

But, i'm sitting here waiting for someone to call me back on something, so here goes my 10 cents...

Firstly, I don't watch the project (usually watching SBS or ABC news at that time) - feel the show went downhill after Charlie Pickering left to go to ABC2.

Secondly, I see this more of a discussion on freedom of speech and right of reply than marriage equality. I mean, that particular subject has been done to death, and whilst i agree with a lot of The PCRealist90's points of rebuttal, I think most people have their views and are likely to change by more debate.

Thirdly, and very importantly, Margaret Court is entitled to her view, and does so in a very public way (the "Qantas" letter isn't her first rodeo). But people don't have to respect these views if they don't agree. I fucking hate when people say "you have to respect their opinion", regardless of what it is. No, you really don't.

With regards to the Project, well, she should have known what she was getting herself into. Was she expecting a cuppa and biscuit, a blanket and everyone to nod in agreement with her or something? Ironically, she then cried to her own "safe space" - Andrew Bolt, who would have, if the shoe was on the other foot, spoken over someone didn't agree with. Works both ways and all that jazz. I was reminded of when Tony Abbott had a cry because Leigh Sales had the audacity to take him to task as Prime Minister. "Whose side are you on?!" he cried!

If she wants to continue to publicly sprout her views, she can't then cry victim when people who are offended or disagree with her go "nah, fuck that". I would say this for anyone, regardless of whether I agreed with the initial viewpoint or not.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I doubt this thread will last long before the usual suspect come along, hurl abuse, and it gets shut down.

But, i'm sitting here waiting for someone to call me back on something, so here goes my 10 cents...

Firstly, I don't watch the project (usually watching SBS or ABC news at that time) - feel the show went downhill after Charlie Pickering left to go to ABC2.

Secondly, I see this more of a discussion on freedom of speech and right of reply than marriage equality. I mean, that particular subject has been done to death, and whilst i agree with a lot of The PCRealist90's points of rebuttal, I think most people have their views and are likely to change by more debate.

Thirdly, and very importantly, Margaret Court is entitled to her view, and does so in a very public way (the "Qantas" letter isn't her first rodeo). But people don't have to respect these views if they don't agree. I fucking hate when people say "you have to respect their opinion", regardless of what it is. No, you really don't.

With regards to the Project, well, she should have known what she was getting herself into. Was she expecting a cuppa and biscuit, a blanket and everyone to nod in agreement with her or something? Ironically, she then cried to her own "safe space" - Andrew Bolt, who would have, if the shoe was on the other foot, spoken over someone didn't agree with. Works both ways and all that jazz. I was reminded of when Tony Abbott had a cry because Leigh Sales had the audacity to take him to task as Prime Minister. "Whose side are you on?!" he cried!

If she wants to continue to publicly sprout her views, she can't then cry victim when people who are offended or disagree with her go "nah, fuck that". I would say this for anyone, regardless of whether I agreed with the initial viewpoint or not.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Yep brilliantly said, this is lost on the right side of politics quite often. Freedom of speech DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM CRITICISM

 

[Blue_boost]

If a German born man wanted to compete in the olympics in the sport of weight lifting but for Australia, would it be permisable? Is Australia against this man for not letting him represent them? No matter how you twist or turn, the man cannot represent Australia, his heritage is from Germany, It has nothing to do with being disrespectful, there is a category for him to compete elsewhere.

Why do they not let women play in the NRL? there are also reasons for this, but it has nothing to do with being disrespectful. again there is a category to compete elsewhere

Is it the same with Marriage? This institution of marriage is defined as a man and a woman? There are actual reasons for this and its the law! If there is no man and women, it don't apply to you. If you turn up with a party of three, it dont apply to you, if you turn up to marry your pet, it dont apply to you. There are millions of people who have married on this basis and understanding the fundamentals. To change the definition can be seen to undermine every married persons decision.

Margaret Court might have stitched up the argument on this one.

 

[CroydonDog]

If a German born man wanted to compete in the olympics in the sport of weight lifting but for Australia, would it be permisable? Is Australia against this man for not letting him represent them? No matter how you twist or turn, the man cannot represent Australia, his heritage is from Germany, It has nothing to do with being disrespectful, there is a category for him to compete elsewhere.

Why do they not let women play in the NRL? there are also reasons for this, but it has nothing to do with being disrespectful. again there is a category to compete elsewhere

Is it the same with Marriage? This institution of marriage is defined as a man and a woman? There are actual reasons for this and its the law! If there is no man and women, it don't apply to you. If you turn up with a party of three, it dont apply to you, if you turn up to marry your pet, it dont apply to you. There are millions of people who have married on this basis and understanding the fundamentals. To change the definition can be seen to undermine every married persons decision.

Margaret Court might have stitched up the argument on this one.

Well, I've been married twice and can confidently say, to change the "definition" of marriage in Australia wouldn't undermine me at all. Just as it hasn't in the dozens of countries that have changed their laws ... Nor would it affect me if it wasn't changed.

The German man can represent Australia at the Olympics once he meets the criteria for doing so. Half of our olympic team would be foreign born (pretty much the entire weightlifting, wrestling, gymnastics and table tennis teams probably are). Bringing up the pet analogy is just silly (even if there was a chorus for change to allow this it can't happen simply because an animal cannot give informed consent, and cannot enter into a contract). The NRL reference doesn't seem to be relevant to me as marriage is not a competition or a contact sport ... as a married person, I'm not competing against other married people or people who want to be married.

 

[CaptainJackson]

If a German born man wanted to compete in the olympics in the sport of weight lifting but for Australia, would it be permisable? Is Australia against this man for not letting him represent them? No matter how you twist or turn, the man cannot represent Australia, his heritage is from Germany, It has nothing to do with being disrespectful, there is a category for him to compete elsewhere.

Kostya Tszyu
Tatiana Grigorieva

Two examples and many more, you're using such stupid reasoning.

Is it the same with Marriage? This institution of marriage is defined as a man and a woman? There are actual reasons for this and its the law!

No there aren't "actual reasons" on this, the only reason that bible basher John Howard changed the laws were because of his religious beliefs, there weren't any ACTUAL reasons.

if you turn up to marry your pet, it dont apply to you.

Typical homophobic garbage.

To change the definition can be seen to undermine every married persons decision.

Bullshit. If I were to get married, it would be to make a life long commitment to the woman I choose. If your "marriage" is undermined by other people's life long commitments to their respective partners, I'd say YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM AND YOU AREN'T REALLY COMMITTED TO YOUR PARTNER


I get sick of these arguments I really do. They are so paper thin, just come out and admit it, you're intolerant and a bigot. Why the need for these BS excuses which hold absolutely NO LOGIC about them.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage because I support freedom first and foremost. I believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

But I'm also a strong supporter of facts and science. And that is why I actually agree with you to a certain degree. People should be able to voice their opinion and people should be able to mock the opinions of those who voice their opinion. That's free speech.

As far as the actual discussion goes, I support people to bring their facts to the discussion and actually have a discussion.

I've closely followed the research into the subject of child rearing in heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships and have some friends who have carried out research into the subject. Here's some interesting things from the research:

1) some research has found that children are worse off being raised by two parents. But most of this research has been sponsored and carried out by anti-homosexual groups

2) most research found that there's no difference between homosexual reared children and heterosexual reared children, but some actual, non-biased research did find a difference

3) early childhood pedagogy is massively flawed. It's one of my psychologocal specialities and I can tell you that research on childhood development is massively flawed. The current research used for developmental study is based on psychological standards produced decades/centuries ago and we still don't know how accurate they are


The fact is that we need more research into the subject but it's difficult to research. It's like neurological research. Morally and ethnically you can't research it because it requires manipulation of the development of children for a control environment.

Currently the research strongly supports gay marriage from a childhood perspective but it's not definitive by any margin.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

If a German born man wanted to compete in the olympics in the sport of weight lifting but for Australia, would it be permisable? Is Australia against this man for not letting him represent them? No matter how you twist or turn, the man cannot represent Australia, his heritage is from Germany, It has nothing to do with being disrespectful, there is a category for him to compete elsewhere.

Others have already pointed out but this is a really flawed analogy as many people from other heritage have represented Australia. Tennis for example has a massive amount of defectors and it's not alone. Almost every sport has someone representing a country they weren't born unto.

Why do they not let women play in the NRL? there are also reasons for this, but it has nothing to do with being disrespectful. again there is a category to compete elsewhere

Fun fact. They do. There's actually no rule banning women from NRL. They just have to prove that they can perform. Instead they chose their own competition.

Is it the same with Marriage? This institution of marriage is defined as a man and a woman?

Kind of. It depends on the culture and several other factors. There are cultures who define marriage as a man and several women. There's cultures that classify marriage as between two loving people. It looks depends on the culture.

There are actual reasons for this and its the law!

"the law" doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing. In America decades back it was the law that a black man couldn't marry a white woman. In some countries it's the law that a woman can't drive.

Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right.

If there is no man and women, it don't apply to you.

Thats what the debate is about. The current definition of marriage was created by the church a log time ago. It differs from the many other definitions provided but there areany different definitions across different cultures.

if you turn up to marry your pet

This is a common argument raised by homophobes. It comes down to consent. An animal can't consent to marriage because they don't understand it. The same argument goes for those who fire off the pedo slippery slope fallacy. Marriage requires consent from both parties.

To change the definition can be seen to undermine every married persons decision.

Again, you're making the mistake of talking about Christian marriage. Marriage pre-dates christ and there are records of the church supporting gay and polygamous marriage at different stages in their history.

 

[Blue_boost]

The German man can represent Australia at the Olympics once he meets the criteria for doing so. .

Sure but you don't change the criteria to include him. You play by the rules, not only rules in this case, its the law!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I know you started with "I have nothing against gay people" but you seem to have proven that wrong with your additional arguments.

All you really need to ask is, "Why am I against gay marriage?"

I'm not talking about why you think you're against it. I'm not talking about why people have told you that you shouldn't support it. I'm asking why you're against it?

If it's because "God doesn't like it", then that's subjective and in supporting that argument then you also accept that one day gay people could ban heterosexual marriage.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Sure but you don't change the criteria to include him. You play by the rules, not only rules in this case, its the law!

Let's try another analogy. At one stage black people weren't allowed to marry white people. They changed the rules to allow it. Did they do the wrong thing? Should we still ban interracial marriage?

 

[CaptainJackson]

In America decades back it was the law that a black man couldn't marry a white woman.

Beat me to it. I was going to raise this.

The arguments against SSM are eerily similar to segregation of races for marriage

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'm going light btw. I could have said "in Nazi Germany and the controlling territories it was law that Jews should be executed. Should we have let the Germans continue because you don't change the rules?"

 

[Blue_boost]

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage because I support freedom first and foremost. I believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

But I'm also a strong supporter of facts and science. And that is why I actually agree with you to a certain degree. People should be able to voice their opinion and people should be able to mock the opinions of those who voice their opinion. That's free speech.

As far as the actual discussion goes, I support people to bring their facts to the discussion and actually have a discussion.

I've closely followed the research into the subject of child rearing in heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships and have some friends who have carried out research into the subject. Here's some interesting things from the research:

1) some research has found that children are worse off being raised by two parents. But most of this research has been sponsored and carried out by anti-homosexual groups

2) most research found that there's no difference between homosexual reared children and heterosexual reared children, but some actual, non-biased research did find a difference

3) early childhood pedagogy is massively flawed. It's one of my psychologocal specialities and I can tell you that research on childhood development is massively flawed. The current research used for developmental study is based on psychological standards produced decades/centuries ago and we still don't know how accurate they are


The fact is that we need more research into the subject but it's difficult to research. It's like neurological research. Morally and ethnically you can't research it because it requires manipulation of the development of children for a control environment.

Currently the research strongly supports gay marriage from a childhood perspective but it's not definitive by any margin.

Its not about how good parents are.. above is completely irrelevant. I have no doubt that same sex couples can be good role models to kids. but that's a separate issue...

Its about the ability to naturally procreate and ensure continuation of the human race.

In the absence of science, if everyone was gay, would the human race be extinct? Sure science can help out but it should only be to assist people who fundamentally have the tools to conceive a child. A man cannot carry a child, nor can a women produce sperm to fertilise. You need one of each, that is how humans are designed to procreate. Marriage is as I understand to fortify this.

Again, I have no issue with gay community, do what makes you happy, I have many friends that are gay, love em. But for the most part the gay lifestyle precludes them from having a child that belongs to both of them. No different to the german man who wants to represent Australia.. Marriage is just not for them.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Let's try another analogy. At one stage black people weren't allowed to marry white people. They changed the rules to allow it. Did they do the wrong thing? Should we still ban interracial marriage?

I'm surprised that this argument doesn't get brought up more often as it's very similar

 

[Shanked]

lol the project, the left wing garbage. If it were toilet paper i still wouldn't wipe my arse with it

 

[blueyedsamurai]

Its like a 5 foot man saying why cant I play centre in the NBA?

Maybe not centre but 5'3" Muggsy Bogues played point guard.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Its not about how good parents are.. above is completely irrelevant. I have no doubt that same sex couples can be good role models to kids. but that's a separate issue...

Its about the ability to naturally procreate and ensure continuation of the human race.

In the absence of science, if everyone was gay, would the human race be extinct? Sure science can help out but it should only be to assist people who fundamentally have the tools to conceive a child. A man cannot carry a child, nor can a women produce sperm to fertilise. You need one of each, that is how humans are designed to procreate. Marriage is as I understand to fortify this.

Again, I have no issue with gay community, do what makes you happy, I have many friends that are gay, love em. But for the most part the gay lifestyle precludes them from having a child that belongs to both of them. No different to the german man who wants to represent Australia.. Marriage is just not for them.

There are married heterosexual couples who also can't have kids, whats your point?

If a gay couple wanted to have kids there's nothing stopping them from finding someone else who'd participate in giving birth or providing sperm for a kid