Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Value Collector · 1 March 2018

wayneL said:
Equating Court with Hitler is ludicrous and is way beyond the pail there Sunshine

Sometimes it easy to understand analogies if you use extreme examples, I used hitler as the example because most people would agree that even though he was once held in high regard, he later fell from grace due to his opinions growing unpopular.

SirRumpole · 1 March 2018

Value Collector said:
Sometimes it easy to understand analogies if you use extreme examples, I used hitler as the example because most people would agree that even though he was once held in high regard, he later fell from grace due to his opinions growing unpopular.

But Margaret Court gave pleasure to tennis fans, she didn't slaughter millions of people.

Some perspective is needed here.

Value Collector · 1 March 2018

SirRumpole said:
But Margaret Court gave pleasure to tennis fans, .

Yeah, and then she started pushing her religion on people and trying to restrict peoples rights.

Once the public starts remembering you for the bad stuff you have done, rather than the inspiring stuff, then they may not want to have public infrastructure named after you anymore.

she didn't slaughter millions of people.

I didn't say she did.

I simply used hitler as the example, because most people would agree that his name leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, so regardless of how good he was a tennis people would agree having a stadium named after him now repulses people rather than inspires.

Now Margret Court is a less extreme example, but due to her actions a lot of people are repulsed by her name, hence why some people would like the name changed.

SirRumpole · 1 March 2018

Value Collector said:
a lot of people are repulsed by her name, hence why some people would like the name changed.

I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.

Value Collector · 1 March 2018

SirRumpole said:
I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.

and they have the right to protest don't they?

But I don't think many Australians below the age of 40 would know who Margret court is if it wasn't for hearing about her religious and political views. So they name isn't really inspiring people, but it would be annoying to those who only know about her because of the drama she caused.

I don't care if the name is changed or not.

wayneL · 1 March 2018

Pardon me, perhaps my interest had been diverted on what I think are more important issues... What rights was she trying to restrict?

Tisme · 1 March 2018

SirRumpole said:
I don't see a massive uprising among the populace to have the name changed. It's just a noisy protest by an irrelevant few.

Usual 1% ers who can't even be fagged to know their national history because they just don't care.

Life before them was just a precursory darkness preceding the age of enlightenment corresponding with their own messianic birth.

Junior · 1 March 2018

She does come across as a nasty individual.

Tisme · 1 March 2018

Junior said:
She does come across as a nasty individual.

She's just old skool. That generation never brooked nonsense and never backed down from a fight .

Her's is an outstanding achievement in tennis and unique from any other player. Whatever drives her worked.

Tink · 2 March 2018

We are all entitled to our view.
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

As I mentioned in another thread -

Good on you, Margaret Court.
Don't let them silence you.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...ean-kings-transgender-criticism-ng-b88713610z

Faith - Family - Truth - Freedom.

-------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/tennis.5619/page-8#post-972094

Value Collector · 2 March 2018

Tink said:
We are all entitled to our view.
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

So they have the right to request the name be changed then, or does freedom of speech only apply to the cause you agree with?

Value Collector · 2 March 2018

wayneL said:
Pardon me, perhaps my interest had been diverted on what I think are more important issues... What rights was she trying to restrict?

I think you know Wayne, I am not getting into the whole debate again, Australia has spoken issue.

Tisme · 2 March 2018

Value Collector said:
So they have the right to request the name be changed then, or does freedom of speech only apply to the cause you agree with?

When has Tink, or any of us, prevented your freedom of speech?

Tink · 2 March 2018

Margaret Court has given her service in our country.

What was she standing up for?

Family (mother and father) and children.

Tisme · 2 March 2018

Tisme said:
When has Tink, or any of us, prevented your freedom of speech?

and of course none of us are allowed to utter a word about LGBT, females, etc without risk of legal penalty for vilification, only committed by white skinned people .... the dystopian brakes on freedom speech by Bas' camp.

wayneL · 2 March 2018

Value Collector said:
I think you know Wayne, I am not getting into the whole debate again, Australia has spoken issue.

If you are referring to SSM, you are indulginging in doublethink. When MC spoke against that, it was not yet a right and had not been anywhere until recently. Ergo, she was not trying to restrict any right at all.

She was merely exercising her own right of free speech.

wayneL · 2 March 2018

Pinker on free speech. He is a leftist speaker I quite enjoy.

Value Collector · 2 March 2018

wayneL said:
If you are referring to SSM, you are indulginging in doublethink. When MC spoke against that, it was not yet a right and had not been anywhere until recently. Ergo, she was not trying to restrict any right at all.

She was merely exercising her own right of free speech.

you are confusing rights with laws, eg blacks had a right to freedom even when it was lawful to enslave them.

But as I said, I am done with this thread, Australia has spoke, the nay sayers are in the minority,

wayneL · 2 March 2018

Is polygamy a right?

How about incest between consenting family members?

How about the right of a minor to have sex with whomever they want?

I posit that some rights are inalienable, others subjective.

Value Collector · 2 March 2018

wayneL said:
Is polygamy a right?

How about incest between consenting family members?
.

Quite possibly, I mean I can't see any reason those relations should be banned. and if they are banned, it should be based on rational real world arguments, not a persons religion.

Of course the religious are free to make and live by what ever rules they like, but they have no right to try and make people who aren't in their cult obey those rules.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?