karaddin Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 On that last part, and I may be misreading what is meant by uneasiness in which case my apologies, but I'm going to be antagonistic and say that in my opinion it's just not good enough. Maybe I feel that way because on top of being gay, I'm also trans and I'm extremely privileged to still be in a good job despite that fact. I'm also hyper aware that any attempt to change jobs is going to be a hell of a lot more difficult than it was before, because even if the discrimination is illegal and even if the person isn't consciously bigoted, as soon as I end up in a situation where another applicant is even close to me subconscious bias will kick in and I'll lose the job. I would never let someones religious beliefs impact whether I employed them or not, and that's the level of acceptance I demand. I feel like this unease, or as I've seen others phrase it "tolerance but not acceptance" just isn't enough. I don't like religion, I think it does harm in this world both directly through awful things (anti LGBTQI policies, sexist policies etc) that are not inherent to religion but to the organisations and indirectly through teaching people to look outward for life's meaning instead of finding it inside themselves. Despite this I am able to ignore my personal feelings and recognise that everyone is free to choose their own beliefs and that I shouldn't and don't judge them for this. I don't expect you to like homosexuality, or to go to gay bars or anything like that, just to extend the same thing I do with respect to religion to people that have different sexualities or gender identities to your own. I could handle it if it were just me struggling, but the reason I say it's not good enough is because there are kids and you don't know where they are. I love my Dad an awful lot, but if I had to point to a single reason it took me until I was 30 to figure out who I really was and find happiness, it would be him. I was convinced he wouldn't accept me if I told him who I was, he is a staunch Catholic and conservative (traditional conservative, the modern LNP do not represent him), and for all of my upbringing he was not comfortable with gay people. Over the years my mother, then my siblings and myself badgered him about this and he slowly became more accepting until finally when I came out he was at a place that he could accept me. We have talked about it though and he's told me that he wouldn't have believed it and he wouldn't have accepted it had I told him when I was 10 or 15, my fear was justified. I'm glad that when it came time for his love to be tested he had changed enough that love won out, I don't resent him for it. But at the end of the day I flushed away 20 years of my life because I feared my father wouldn't accept who I was, and that to me is unacceptable. My mothers love for me kept me alive, because the thought of what it would do to her if I killed myself was too much for me to do it, but for far too many boys and girls like me they don't have that and it doesn't cost them years or decades of their life, it costs them their lives full stop. That's unacceptable. So for anyone that is having children in this society, anyone that is in a position to influence whether children feel they can be open about who they are, I say you need to do more. And unless you are an antisocial hermit, that's basically everyone. For a more articulate account of the impact that even just a single use of a homophobic slur, even just casually without meaning it, can have on someone I link to this piece by Rebecca Shaw. I don't expect your understanding, or your agreement, I just want your apathy. To not care what other people do with their relationships and to make sure kids know you don't care. If this describes how you actually are and I misunderstood what you mean by unease, then apologies, but this is something I've felt the need to say for a while. I'm sick of being told that my demand for the respect I show others is intolerance (which you didn't say, that's coming from other conversations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I would never let someones religious beliefs impact whether I employed them or not, and that's the level of acceptance I demand. Sorry, I should have clarified "unease". I have personal unease about gay marriage and gay culture, sure. But what you're saying above is most definitely not me and I'm glad you didn't assume so. As a mature human being, I am in control of most of my actions and decisions above and beyond what I "feel". I love junk food. Do I allow that to rule me so that I eat junk food every meal of every day? Of course not. My head knows better and I can, thankfully, exercise self control that allows my head to make decisions rather than my heart/feelings. To imply that people who are "uneasy" about gay marriage/culture lack the discipline to moderate themselves is doing many a disservice. I'm sure there are some people who do behave in that way, but I like to think that the majority of mature adults have learned not to be ruled by their feelings. As Pax points out, there still remains a lot of work to do in society. I acknowledge that, and though I am not perfect and probably still have parts of subconscious bias, I do my best to let what my head knows about fairness and equity rule over any feelings of unease from my heart. I guess part of my previous post was a simple plea on the part of many religious folk who do extend the respect that you describe above - often I get the "you're religious, you must hate all things LGBT, you're the enemy etc" (not from you, btw) and I feel that's a simplistic and inaccurate portrait of who I am. I don't like being immediately thought of as the enemy and that the first thing anyone thinks about regarding religion is that we're haters. Some people are, but there is a large body of people who aren't. Maybe getting gay marriage passed will help both sides see through that. I am very sorry for your situation Karaddin and I'm really glad you came through it. I wish things had been better for you. I know there's still a lot more at stake, and for you this struggle will never "be over". Truly, that sucks and I am sorry. Hopefully what I said earlier clarifies a bit more about where I am. EDIT: To pivot a little bit on this - because it came to mind on the issues of assumptions and also I don't want to hijack Aussies too much on one thing - I know I'm quite rare on this thread as being a disclosed Liberal voter. But something that really bugs me is the asylum seekers issue too. I hate Tony Abbott's stance on this. And I hate Bill Shorten's, too. But there are subversive elements in the Liberal party that are moving and I hope they get more traction. For instance, (I don't hold Liberal membership btw), without putting too much personal information out there on the Internet, Bruce Baird has been elected Vice President of the Federal Liberal Party and I know for a fact he has been helping asylum seekers with their cases pro bono and has taken up their cause to the government on a number of occasions. I really hope he is able to effect change within the Liberal party for a more compassionate stance for asylum seekers. I may vote Liberal more often than not (I have voted Labor too) but it doesn't mean I support their cruel stance on asylum seekers. People are complex and labels never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh_wulff Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I am really enjoying the respectful tone of this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Thanks for the clarification Jeor. I think the problem with LGBTQI people, and those strongly aligned with socially progressive politics in general, viewing religious people as the enemy is that the vast majority of the vocally religious people are the ones who are not just opposed to our rights, but often very vitriolic in their hatred. These people absolutely are my enemies and it's unfortunate that the view of the rest of you is tarnished by them, and I know they are very much more a minority of religious people here than they are in the US (I'm often guilty of consuming too much of what I see from the US and forgetting things aren't the same here). I'd love it if there were more religious figures preaching tolerance and I think it would help with this hostility. For example (since you brought up her Dad) I know Julia Baird is a deeply religious woman who is fighting from within one of the most regressive Churches in Australia, the Sydney Anglicans, to improve equality, she is also staunchly supportive of LGBTQI people from everything I've seen and has written the best piece of journalism on trans people I've seen written by a cisgender individual (in terms of language - zero problematic phrases, everything spot on). I also agree with your edited in part, I hate blind partisan politics and while I'm a bleeding heart lefty I don't identify with a party and I would vote centre right if I was convinced it was the best thing to do. On asylum seekers (and security issues) those are the policy areas I find most depressing because we can't even get change by voting out one major party for the other. They are both awful and it's disgusting. Change has to come from within the parties and that's a slow process indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 This Phillip Morris vs Aussie plain packaging law is getting interesting. What would happen if they win? Would the legislation get automatically repealed? It's scary that a private corporation may be able to overturn a legislation like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 This Phillip Morris vs Aussie plain packaging law is getting interesting. What would happen if they win? Would the legislation get automatically repealed? It's scary that a private corporation may be able to overturn a legislation like that. I guess PM's argument is going to be on the basis that the Govt is interfering with their right to have a brand. I imagine they will argue something along the lines of "other products are dangerous to health and it is only the tobacco industry that has been singled out". They might further argue: "Can you imagine an Australia where every brand of beer has plain packaging? Or every car? Or every bottle of wine? Or every product containing high levels of fat or sugar? Coca Cola would object if they could no longer use their red cans. XXXX, VB, Toohey's etc all in brown cans? That would face a challenge. McDonald's being told they cannot use the Golden Arches? These corporations would start chucking writs around left right and centre were that the case." I'm not saying that cigarettes should not be in plain packaging, but I do think that brands have value and if the value of those brands diminishes due to Govt intervention then I would imagine that corporations should have right to challenge the law. I dunno the basis for it though. I know PM lost in the HCA, and are now seeking to litigate overseas, but I haven't followed this case as closely as I have others decided by the HCA in recent times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would we sign a FTA that would even allow something like this to happen? It's bizarre. Maybe all these TPP alarmists are actually on to something. I have very little sympathy for this stupid plain packaging law but I also don't like to see our sovereignty meddled with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why on earth would you have little sympathy for a law that's actually reducing smoking while not acting as a regressive tax for the government to get hooked on? Only reason to have any animosity to it is either pure ideology which I didn't think you held, or profiteering from tobacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I don't smoke, never have and honestly find smoking pretty distasteful so I'm not gonna pick this hill to die on. However, I don't think "smoking is bad mmmkay" is a good enough reason to force companies to not display any of their branding on their products. It strikes my as arbitrary, farcical and a little bit sanctimonious, although not as sanctimonious as plastering pictures of leprosy and shit all over the packaging, which we do as well for some reason. Seems like a pretty straight-forward position to me. I can understand why one would take the opposite position but I don't see why mine is so bizarre that it must be based on 'pure ideology' or 'profiteering from tobacco' (whatever that means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Ideology meant anti government interference. Which is basically what you said, I didn't think you felt particularly strongly on that so I was surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I wouldn't tie my position to any kind of ideology. My position isn't that "it's government interference therefore it's bad", my position is that in this particular case the government interference is not justified. I'm perfectly happy for the government to interfere with them in other ways i.e ACCC busting their ass for engaging in shady practices but as long as they're selling a legal product and not misleading the consumer/advertising to children etc etc then I say let them display their brand on their product. I don't adhere to any political ideology, and again, I fail to see how my position necessitates some kind of ideological affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkhangel Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I would be completely comfortable with plain packaging laws for alcohol and any other products with a similar track record with mortality/morbidity, if that was something the government wanted to introduce for the sake of consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh_wulff Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Maybe the should have plain packaging on books too. ;) Eta smiley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I would be completely comfortable with plain packaging laws for alcohol and any other products with a similar track record with mortality/morbidity, if that was something the government wanted to introduce for the sake of consistency. Yeah I agree. I don't see why corporations should feel entitled to the right to sugar-coat their poisons. Even if they do feel entitled, we should hold the right to tell them to get stuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So Bishop has resigned, didn't take long for someone to dig this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The lesson is never tweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The lesson is never tweet. That's certainly the pragmatic lesson. the idealistic lesson is, just tweet stuff you actually believe, not opportunistic bullshit designed to score political points. After all, I'm sure Tony's tweeted a bunch of times about how much he dislikes gay marriage, but I doubt he'll ever find himself organising a politically convenient same-sex wedding (and not just because it's difficult to image what that might look like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 the idealistic lesson is, just tweet stuff you actually believe, not opportunistic bullshit designed to score political points. I think it's a mistake to suppose that these are separate categories. The actual pragmatic course is to keep tweeting whatever gets your followers up and motivated without regard for consistency because the only people who care about what your official twitter account says are political tragics. Ideally, politicians wouldn't use twitter, and it would be kept as an arcadian grove of impenetrable dank memes and subtweet feuds as its creators intended, but we live in nude and angry times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Will Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I think it's a mistake to suppose that these are separate categories. The actual pragmatic course is to keep tweeting whatever gets your followers up and motivated without regard for consistency because the only people who care about what your official twitter account says are political tragics. Ideally, politicians wouldn't use twitter, and it would be kept as an arcadian grove of impenetrable dank memes and subtweet feuds as its creators intended, but we live in nude and angry times. Ah, perhaps you're right. The only time anyone else cares what's on a politician's twitter account is when they can be mocked for it, and the people likely to mock them are people unlikely to vote for them anyway. Of course it isn't just his tweets that come back to bite him quite so emphatically. The last time it was he said in parliament, and while I wouldn't object if he never spoke in parliament again, I doubt he'd be willing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldLordPlumm Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Hello Aussies Does anyone know if gryphon_strike still posts here? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.