hardtack

Last I checked, Richmond don't field an AFLW team... not sure how her supporting the Tigers' men's team in their first GF for some time, affects her performance for the Dees AFLW team.

To be fair, there is an Attorney General's Department that can deal with changes to the law including marriage law. Why do they not use a survey to determine changes to other laws? Was there a survey to determine how the public felt about changes that allowed defacto couples to have what are essentially the same legal rights as traditionally wed couples? Have there ever been surveys relating to changing the age of consent or the legal age for marriage? Also, and this is a serious question as I don't know the answer, how was SSM legislated in all of the other "western democracies"? Did any one of those countries that allow SSM go about it with a survey as has been done here?

When I first read it, I thought it said "fiscally"

Um.

EH... that's precisely why I said "assuming that is definitely the case". The article still maintains that climate change is a real thing and is happening, so we should be working towards reducing/eliminating its impact regardless of how much time we do or don't have.

So?

Isn't the keyword in that headline "occurring"? Perhaps we should be grateful that the predictions/models have been wrong (assuming that is definitely the case) and that we have more time available to us to reduce the effects... it certainly doesn't mean we should abandon the treaties and not take preventative measures.

Didn't the bible also say that it's ok for a man to stone his wife to death if she commits adultery; in which case it is condoning domestic violence. Didn't the bible also say that the marriage must be fruitful; that is, must bear children... in which case infertile persons need not apply. Didn't the bible also say that the man is head of the family and that the woman is insubordinate; in which case, women must be inferior. Now, if you could please quote a passage, any passage from the bible that apparently does specifically state that homosexuality is an abomination and that it doesn't apply the same standards of "unholy" behaviour to straight male/female relationships (apparently sexual orientation wasn't something that was well understood in biblical times. Another thing to consider is that the bible was written and rewritten over hundreds of years by men... not by god. We went from creationism in the old testament to a more "realistic" view in the new testament... now why would that be? The bible in essence is a book written using the same principles as that old game called Chinese Whispers... as the stories have been handed down they have been embellished and the end product is something that reflects man's beliefs more than it reflects the word of god (if it's to be believed such a being even exists).

Yeah, but they'll need to convert to feet and inches and they need to set up goal and point posts to measure accuracy as well as distance.

I don't disagree with you OD. But given the circumstances, I suppose there was always the chance he could have been delisted or feelers put out for trade possibilities (as unlikely as they might be), so I think he probably realises and appreciates that he has to earn his place back in the side and is coming from a long way back, and that the club is giving him that chance.

I don't see it as telling at all... considering his run with injuries and lack of game time, and considering he is out of contract, it was probably the only way the club could go... he wasn't delisted and he has no real currency in a trade situation, so a one year re-signing is the best outcome for all.

1. So, perhaps you might care to list for me, those Western countries whose traditional values you love to see preserved, that have not already granted same sex marriage legal status? 2. The AFL have a responsibility to look after their players, yes, but they also have a responsibility to represent their players. They are NOT telling people how to vote, but they ARE stating their preference as they are no doubt aware of players in their ranks who are affected by this issue. 3. Not a ridiculous argument at all... the platform that this mail vote was built on is that same sex partners will have the same legal rights and status as any other couple when it comes to getting married. Opponents of SSM have been attempting to cloud/divert the issue by introducing the "thin end of the wedge" argument, claiming that this will impact on safe schools programs, gender fluidity, etc etc. The platform for this vote has been stated in obvious enough terms, that would be no less or no more credible than any party running for election on any number of issues/promises. In fact, if anything, but a single issue, this is probably less fraught with "danger" than the many promises of a political party running for election.

No... the organisation first supported them and then ran with the cause so that ALL players could play without fear of racial vilification. Winmar became the AFL's pin-up boy for their (what you righties might call) "political cause"... and rightly so.

1. Traditional western values I would have thought include a fair go for ALL... hence, the move is to enhancing our "traditional values" so that they are more inclusive. 2. Are you saying that there are no gay AFL players? The AFL are standing up for the rights of those in their ranks who are currently affected by the marriage laws as they presently stand. 3. To hearken back to Nutbean's comment... can we take it that you don't vote in Federal or State elections as the parties never go to the polls with legislation drawn up.

The post I was responding to was saying: "Just wish the afl would stick to bloody footy.". You are right that the MFC was supporting Reach and the reading program (I was wrong), but I am sure that 64" would have insisted that the same apply to individual clubs.

In the case of Nicky Winmar's gesture, the AFL adopted that as part of their campaign against racism. The same could be said for the other two Olympics related images. Yes they were individuals making a stance, but in all cases those images and the issues they represented were supported by the respective organisations... so not really such a different concept at all.

Yeah, no more of that Reach or reading in schools program nonsense, eh!

You must have really hated these moments...

I don't see this as the politicising of sport.

I doubt the kick would budge the cow more than a centimetre or two... however, in response, the cow may well kick the kicker into the side of the barn, yes.

I'd like to see you try kicking a cow AND hit the side of a barn!

And his usual is exactly what we are trying to eradicate from the team.

I genuinely cannot think of one valid counter argument against same sex marriage, unless you want to suggest that it introduces the added inconvenience of divorce.

Never mind the fact he plays a completely different role.

Not to mention that an overwhelming YES vote sends a loud and clear message to the govt that they had better not mess up the legislation; otherwise it could see them back in opposition at the next election.