Hawthorn Same Sex Marriage Stance

[hawks realist]

Well the sign-writing the other day said 'vote no' not 'respond no on your survey'. If you want to play the semantics card - a vote is defined as 'a formal expression of opinion or choice' - pretty sure asking my opinion on something and getting me to tick a box is a vote.

And yeah we should keep politics out of sport - no good ever comes from it...

View attachment 418508

What sign writing?

So Nicky lifted his jumper because of politics?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Sigh.

Thanks 89Adopter. It didn't work but thanks for trying.

I pretty much knew I was on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

What sign writing?

So Nicky lifted his jumper because of politics?

Because of racism - yes. That is as much a social issue as marriage equality is.

 

[OzJohnnie]

I pretty much knew I was on a hiding to nothing.

Well, to be honest after first calling for letting it go you then jumped feet first into the debate. Ain't no one is perfect. We just do our best.

 

[Gold Member]

LoL this thread.

BigFooty imitates life.

 

[cryptor]

I don't think it's necessary for Hawthorn (or any club, organisation or business) to have an opinion on any issue that isn't directly related to their industry. They're made up of so many people with widely different opinions and stances on these issues.

Hawthorn should just stick to footy issues.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The club should stay out of it.
People have their views, and being a big shot about being "for" somerging only pushes people further to one side and creates drama

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Well, to be honest after first calling for letting it go you then jumped feet first into the debate. Ain't no one is perfect. We just do our best.

Haha - that said I am not advocating for one side or the other. I have mainly being arguing semantics and the rights of organisations to express a political opinion/preference.

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

Oh we can't offend the poor no voters can we, such a hard life they've had. Such a worthy and noble cause they push, how dare we offend them

 

[hawks realist]

Because of racism - yes. That is as much a social issue as marriage equality is.

What sign writing were you on about?

 

[OzJohnnie]

Oh we can't offend the poor no voters can we, such a hard life they've had. Such a worthy and noble cause they push, how dare we offend them

You have logically check-mated yourself in two moves.

 

[Great 2008]

Because of racism - yes. That is as much a social issue as marriage equality is.

Rubbish. My next boss (in the industry I work in 1100 people) is gay. People I work with are gay and in prominent positions and in relationships. They work they play, they eat at the same restaurants the go to the same public toilets. They have the same skin colour.

It is not about race. It is about sexual preference and a push to redefine a relationship that has been part of the world since time began. Suddenly that should all be tipped on it's head and people who do not agree are racist? Spare me.

 

[Birdofprey]

Yeah Clarko is good and actually stands up for people. I have heard him voice is support for equality and ssm a couple of times

I believe that Clarko was the only AFL coach to be part of the official AFL photo shoot with Gill in favor of SSM. Caro posted an article at The Age last night about it, but did not mention Clarko or Gawn as participants (only Heppel and Brown, and reference to AFLW representatives). So I am not certain, but it looks like he was the only coach involved. While the Hawks official statement supports diversity more generally, some of the influential people from the club (Clarko and Kennett) have been pretty supportive of it. Kennett was vocal in support of it as far back as 2012.

 

[ZAD1]

The fact Clarko is not in the Club polo tells me that Hawthorn doesn't want to become involved in the debate and that he is just simply expressing his personal view.

 

[Gralin]

this thread is very close to being closed
if you want to debate SSM go to SRP or GD boards, this is not the place for left vs right baiting
posters who keep attacking each other will get a day off

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Rubbish. My next boss (in the industry I work in 1100 people) is gay. People I work with are gay and in prominent positions and in relationships. They work they play, they eat at the same restaurants the go to the same public toilets. They have the same skin colour.

It is not about race. It is about sexual preference and a push to redefine a relationship that has been part of the world since time began. Suddenly that should all be tipped on it's head and people who do not agree are racist? Spare me.

I think you missed my point completely. Feel free to message me for a clarification as I am not tipping fuel on the fire here.

 

[natio]

Rubbish. My next boss (in the industry I work in 1100 people) is gay. People I work with are gay and in prominent positions and in relationships. They work they play, they eat at the same restaurants the go to the same public toilets. They have the same skin colour.

It is not about race. It is about sexual preference and a push to redefine a relationship that has been part of the world since time began. Suddenly that should all be tipped on it's head and people who do not agree are racist? Spare me.

Not attacking or anything but I think 89Adopter was saying the Winmar incident was because of race. I don't think he was saying SSM had anything to do with race. I think just a misunderstanding on that one.

I get what people are saying about being told how to vote and all that. I actually think a great majority of us agree on that. Particularly in Australia, and Victoria where we have a bit of a nanny-state bloody governing telling us everything we can do and not do. All I think is sometimes (rarely) we get opportunities to stand up for people not getting a fair go - and when we do get that chance, showing public solidarity can be as important our personal votes, and maybe more important than our feeling of "not liking being told what to do or think."

And all I will say is that the history of "marriage" is complex and as it currently stands legally, an act of parliament. It was John Howard that legally changed the definition of marriage in the 90s as between one man and one woman, so it's not like it hasn't changed or been altered.

Sorry if this thread caused people to get angry and hateful.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Not attacking or anything but I think 89Adopter was saying the Winmar incident was because of race. I don't think he was saying SSM had anything to do with race. I think just a misunderstanding on that one.

I get what people are saying about being told how to vote and all that. I actually think a great majority of us agree on that. Particularly in Australia, and Victoria where we have a bit of a nanny-state bloody governing telling us everything we can do and not do. All I think is sometimes (rarely) we get opportunities to stand up for people not getting a fair go - and when we do get that chance, showing public solidarity can be as important our personal votes, and maybe more important than our feeling of "not liking being told what to do or think."

And all I will say is that the history of "marriage" is complex and as it currently stands legally, an act of parliament. It was John Howard that legally changed the definition of marriage in the 90s as between one man and one woman, so it's not like it hasn't changed or been altered.

Sorry if this thread caused people to get angry and hateful.

Was actually changed in 2004, not the 90s . Sorry to be petty - but it seems like a thread where pedantry has prevailed a bit haha.

 

[Furn2]

Rubbish. My next boss (in the industry I work in 1100 people) is gay. People I work with are gay and in prominent positions and in relationships. They work they play, they eat at the same restaurants the go to the same public toilets. They have the same skin colour.

It is not about race. It is about sexual preference and a push to redefine a relationship that has been part of the world since time began. Suddenly that should all be tipped on it's head and people who do not agree are racist? Spare me.

Marriage has been part of the world since time began ?

 

[OzJohnnie]

Marriage has been part of the world since time began ?

Mine sure seems like it's lasted that long.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Mine sure seems like it's lasted that long.

Takes an eternity for me to pick the right restaurant for dinner I can assure you of that.

 

[The_Axeman]

After seeing Caltons weak public stance on the ssm issue and Gils and the AFLs well balance public endorsement I was wondering what hawthorn have said about the issue.

Anyone know?

The fact i can't find anything doesn't say great things about the club. For a club that calls itself the family club, standing up and saying, as an organisation, we support all our employees and supporters right to equality and suppporting the Yes vote would seem appropriate.

I've really had a gutfull of all the virtue signallers who want everyone to know how tolerant and inclusive they are as long as we all agree with them. Why does a football club or any other organisation have to have a stance? If they took a stance that you didn't agree with would you be one of the ones that are sooking it up, threatening to boycott and acting like a tool on social media? You only want them to take a stance if it is the stance that you agree with, right?

 

[Great 2008]

Marriage has been part of the world since time began ?

I think you know what I meant.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Should be YES, and anyone who says otherwise should justify their opinion.

 

[Davo23]

We had a meeting of the Wine Appreciation Society last night.

We voted to publish a stance on this issue but Andy knocked over a bottle of red and the written motion was ruined.

It was a Coonawarra Cabernet too from 2002, what a waste.