Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

marienbad · 07-10-2012 3:18pm

jimi- surely it is immaterial how valid this guys points are ? The first thing one would do investigating any claim is to verify the credentials of the person making them ?

This would any apply to anything from carpentry to physics , and if those credentials don't measure up you move on to the next ''expert''. Life is too short to waste time debunking claims that the guy was'nt qualified to make in the first place.

That is what you would do if you being objective . On the other hand if you had an already fixed view then you might go searching for ''experts'' to confirm that view ?

07-10-2012 4:59pm

JimiTime wrote: »

You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.

And as always, you utterly fail to even attempt to explain why the question is irrelevant. Someone asks you a difficult question you don't like, and every single time, without fail, you call it "stupid". You don't say why it's stupid, you don't say how it's relevancy is in any way diminished, just that it's "stupid". And then you have the arrogance to say that other people are playing the man instead of the point?* Oh, and by the way, the only explicit insult in the last few pages of this thread has been from you, calling Bannasidhe illiterate. And then you cry to the moderators that no-one's treating you fairly?

*Out of curiosity, how is asking you a question playing the man?

King Mob · 07-10-2012 6:28pm

JimiTime wrote: »

So he attacks his points, by not dealing at all with his points. Gotcha. I'll give you this KM, you are consistent.

So you don't think the fact that he is not qualified to make the judgements in his points is relevant?
You don't think that the fact he works for such a vile and biased organisation might taint his opinions?

Unfortunatly, since neither you, nor he backs up his assertions with something other than with his own authority, the most direct and simple way to address his points to to show how he has no authority at all.
Which robin showed he doesn't.

But then you really really needed an excuse to avoid those points, hence your silly feigned outrage.
You could have say supplied the evidence to back up his assertions, or argued how he is qualified, or that his organisation isn't bigoted and biased...
But that would require those things to be true and for you to be honest.

JimiTime wrote: »

You are free to invent any answer you want.

You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.

And yet, you can't answer a simple direct question....
Almost as if the answer proves your point to be hypocritical hot air.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-10-2012 8:09pm

Letter in yesterday's Irish Times:

Sir, – Canon Charles Kenny states that “If a church truly believes in equality then it should not introduce caveats to lessen that equality. Behind the denial to a gay or lesbian couple of the right to avail of civil marriage is the belief that their relationship is inferior to a heterosexual one” (October 5th).

The point is that a gay relationship is different to that of a heterosexual couple. Yet, today many gay couples can now adopt or have children by other means; and through civil partnership they have all the legal rights (and obligations) of a married couple.

Many companies offer same-sex partners all the benefits they give to spouses and wives. What is all the fuss about for a church ceremony?

Older gays who experienced discrimination in Ireland in the 1970s are more cautious about church weddings which are usually more expensive than civil ceremonies. They view the clamour for gays to marry in church as pushing the boundaries that bit too far – which can provoke a backlash.

Even though we are now more tolerant than in the 1970s, the ongoing recession can make people less tolerant of minorities and the sight of gays splashing out thousands on a fancy church wedding when most familes are struggling to pay the bills may not be the best advertisement for a gay lifestyle. – Yours, etc,

- Ignores that civil partnership legislation is silent on the position of a gay couple's children. It is not equivalent to a civil marriage.

- Ignores that the campaign to change the law can only affect civil marriage - what churches choose to permit in their ceremonies is their and their followers' business

- Whatever about the Church of Ireland, the RCC is not going to allow gay weddings in church!!!

- Who'd want to be married in a church which (until at least the next pope's reign - but a pope effectively chooses the candidates for the next papacy so the prospect of change is poor) considers gay people to be 'intrinsically disordered' ??

- The weaselly last paragraph is particularly odious, if Der Sturmer had letters to the editor it would fit right in with minimal changes. Sure the jews/gays/blacks/whoever should know their place and not draw attention to themselves and be glad we let them live in society atall...

Tim Robbins · 07-10-2012 10:24pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

I was really pleasantly surprised by that letter.

When I was reading it, I assumed the writer would go on to draw a distinction between civil marriage and religious ceremonies, and I expected him to say he fully supported civil marriage equality, but that religious organisations should be allowed to marry in the fashion they wished, within the confines of their own belief. And I would have been fine with that. To have anyone in a Christian church call for full marriage equality would have been great.

But for him to then go on and call for religious marriage equality was a breath of fresh air.

Yeah it's good alright. Sadly, the Presbyertian notes from Saturday's IT sing a pretty unfriendly attitude towards gar marriage.

robindch · 08-10-2012 10:32am

JimiTime wrote: »

So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.

A bit like quite a few recent posts in this thread, I'm wondering if I should start this one "I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but...". But I won't. Which of the substantial claims I made lacked substance? Here they are again for the sake of convenience:

I pointed out that he appears to have no formal qualification in the area in which he's operating; that it's frankly dishonest to label yourself as "Dr" and "PhD" when discussing a topic in which you've no formal qualification (people might be understandably mislead into thinking that the PhD does refer to the topic at hand); that his figures on RCC pedophilia are flat-out wrong, even according to what the RCC itself says (around 66% of the victims were young boys, not 99% as he claims); that he appears to be linked to NARTH, an organization which is known to be virulently homophobic (implying that Whitehead and his conclusions are driven by ideology, and not by fact); that NARTH supports the discredited techniques of psychoanalysis (really); that his book-length screed is peppered with an unending stream of elementary howlers including spelling, grammar and stylistic errors not to mention a collection of errors of fact which are so pervasive that they cannot be unintentional. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Do all of these together really constitute "nothing of substance"?

old hippy · 08-10-2012 12:24pm

Can I ask Jimi this; would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

ShooterSF · 08-10-2012 12:51pm

old hippy wrote: »

Can I ask Jimi this; would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

You can but may as well ask the wall. It's been asked and like many questions he's uncomfortable with the logical conclusion that follows his initial secular looking stance he tries to hide it by claiming its a silly or stupid question without any reason.

NuMarvel · 08-10-2012 1:39pm

ninja900 wrote: »

Letter in yesterday's Irish Times:

There's an article in today's Irish Indo (here) about how much hetero couples spend on weddings, and it seems that that letter writer has to worry about more than just the gays splashing out thousands:

A survey of 200 couples commissioned by the [upcoming Designer Wedding Show's] organisers reveals that the average couple spend €9,905 on their venue, €2,436 on the band and entertainment, €1,865 on the wedding dress and €1,647 on the photographer. Yet, other smaller items such as €476 on wedding car hire and €214 on wedding favours combine to bring the average spend to €23,398.

The big-ticket items are the reception venue and the photographer, with most couples allotting half their budget to these. Around 71pc of the couples questioned said quality was more important than price.

Bannasidhe · 08-10-2012 1:55pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's an article in today's Irish Indo (here) about how much hetero couples spend on weddings, and it seems that that letter writer has to worry about more than just the gays splashing out thousands:

My 30 year old nephew is marrying his 27 year old fiancee next month. His mother is paying for the whole shebang including honeymoon (idiot!) even though she is in dire mortgage arrears herself. Yet, the happy couple were able to afford to fly off for stag/hen weekends and up until the bride learned she is about to be made redundant at the end of this month they were planning a month long 2nd honeymoon in Thailand in the new year. The mind boggles!!!

They have saved some money as I have agreed to be the photographer for the day but when asked to arrive at 9 a.m. for a 2 p.m. ceremony so I could photograph the bride getting her hair done I must admit I employed some Anglo-Saxon vernacular rarely heard since the 16th century.

The attitude of this couple has me gobsmacked - the Bride has gone all bridezilla and must have x + y +z as it's her special day and he goes along with all of this as 'sure, it's what she wants like...' - that's grand but pay for it yourself in that case ye freeloading miscreants!!! :mad:

Sarky · 08-10-2012 1:58pm

The last wedding I was at turned a profit. I have some very shrewd friends.

Bannasidhe · 08-10-2012 2:05pm

Sarky wrote: »

The last wedding I was at turned a profit. I have some very shrewd friends.

I'm still trying to convince my father that as he never had to pay for a wedding for me he should slip me a few grand by way of compensation.

NuMarvel · 08-10-2012 2:08pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 30 year old nephew is marrying his 27 year old fiancee next month. His mother is paying for the whole shebang including honeymoon (idiot!) even though she is in dire mortgage arrears herself. Yet, the happy couple were able to afford to fly off for stag/hen weekends and up until the bride learned she is about to be made redundant at the end of this month they were planning a month long 2nd honeymoon in Thailand in the new year. The mind boggles!!!

They have saved some money as I have agreed to be the photographer for the day but when asked to arrive at 9 a.m. for a 2 p.m. ceremony so I could photograph the bride getting her hair done I must admit I employed some Anglo-Saxon vernacular rarely heard since the 16th century.

The attitude of this couple has me gobsmacked - the Bride has gone all bridezilla and must have x + y +z as it's her special day and he goes along with all of this as 'sure, it's what she wants like...' - that's grand but pay for it yourself in that case ye freeloading miscreants!!! :mad:

Tsk, tsk. You should be advocating a traditional wedding.

Where her family pays, and his (i.e. your) family gets a variety of livestock, preferably porcine or bovine.

ButtimersLaw · 09-10-2012 1:07pm

philologos wrote: »

I'm happy to walk through any passage in the Bible with you if you provide chapter and verse. You might want to OK it with Dades and robindch. But if you're willing to listen to what I say and show the same respect as I'll show you. That's fine by me.

It's the last word in respect to how I should live as a Christian. It's the model I aspire to in any conversation with others. If for one reason or another I can't treat you with the gentleness and respect you deserve (1 Peter 3:15 - 16). I'll stop.

You seem to misunderstand my point which i will repeat once more; Quoting the Bible is not an argument.

it may well be that you choose to believe the bible and use it as a guide as to how to live your life.

This forum is for debate and discussion, and you'll be aware that there are others here who do not share your beliefs, as you do not share theirs.

I have no wish to debate the bible with you, as it's not relevant to the topic under discussion. If you wish to quote the bible at me, then i am free to quote it back to show it for the contradictions contained therein. You can choose to ignore those if they make you uncomfortable, and choose only to discuss those bits you are happier with, or choose whatever you want.

However, to merely quote the bible here is to confuse your dogma for argument. I am not confused by that at all, although you seem to think we should all suspend argument and simply agree with your interpretation of the bible.

As a matter of interest, out of 100, how likely do you think it is that the posters here will agree with you on that?

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 3:37pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

You can but may as well ask the wall. It's been asked and like many questions he's uncomfortable with the logical conclusion that follows his initial secular looking stance he tries to hide it by claiming its a silly or stupid question without any reason.

The only relevance such a question has, is to set you up to attack the poster, not the position and is thus irrelevant. I understand that some of you don't like to deal with points made, but rather go after the man as it were.

And btw, my 'secular looking stance', is merely because I'm talking to people who do not know God. Its actually the issue. I'm hardly going to appeal to a Godly based reasoning am I? You'd swear I was hiding the fact. The issue I have is that the alleged secular decision, seems to be inconsistent and marred in political ideology.

So again, you are free to pretend I hold whatever position you wish, and assume hypocrisy and whatever else you want based on that pretence, as I wont be indulging your irrelevant question.

09-10-2012 3:43pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The only relevance such a question has, is to set you up to attack the poster, not the position and is thus irrelevant. I understand that some of you don't like to deal with points made, but rather go after the man as it were.

How is asking a question grounds to attack? I would have thought this obvious, but the answer is what leaves you open to having to defend your more ludicrous positions.

And of course, once again, you utterly fail to identify what part of the question is irrelevant, or how it is irrelevant, or what your problem with the question is.

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 3:51pm

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue I have is that the alleged secular decision, seems to be inconsistent and marred in political ideology.

Fairly ironic considering everyone knows this is exactly the charge that would be levelled at your own position if you weren't refusing to answer a couple of fairly straightforward questions.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 3:55pm

robindch wrote: »

A bit like quite a few recent posts in this thread, I'm wondering if I should start this one "I'm not sure if you had time to read the previous post(s), but...". But I won't. Which of the substantial claims I made lacked substance? Here they are again for the sake of convenience:

I pointed out that he appears to have no formal qualification in the area in which he's operating; that it's frankly dishonest to label yourself as "Dr" and "PhD" when discussing a topic in which you've no formal qualification (people might be understandably mislead into thinking that the PhD does refer to the topic at hand); that his figures on RCC pedophilia are flat-out wrong, even according to what the RCC itself says (around 66% of the victims were young boys, not 99% as he claims); that he appears to be linked to NARTH, an organization which is known to be virulently homophobic (implying that Whitehead and his conclusions are driven by ideology, and not by fact); that NARTH supports the discredited techniques of psychoanalysis (really); that his book-length screed is peppered with an unending stream of elementary howlers including spelling, grammar and stylistic errors not to mention a collection of errors of fact which are so pervasive that they cannot be unintentional. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Do all of these together really constitute "nothing of substance"?

I'm afraid they do Robin. Nothing above actually deals with the points he raised. Of course, if you are suspicious about the guy, then approach with caution, your points are valid in that context. What they don't do however, is in any way deal with his points. Not trying to be a boll0x about it, but none of this deals with the points raised. They are more a distraction from them. He is not part of NARTH as far as I can see (I don't know a hell of a lot about them), but rather NARTH have called upon him as a research scientist who's conclusions aide their agenda. I don't deny btw, that he's driven by ideology and one can only hope that such people are honest, but you do have to have your wits about you. I think people who get into this subject, from either side, come at it with the hope of seeing certain conclusions. It doesn't make it easy thats for sure, but both sides likely want to spin the science, studies etc in their favour. This leaves things in our hands. To look at the claims and try to discover where the facts are. So again, looking at the points he makes, and asking if he has a point or not is what is required IMO.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 3:58pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Fairly ironic considering everyone knows this is exactly the charge that would be levelled at your own position if you weren't refusing to answer a couple of fairly straightforward questions.

I do have an ideology. I don't hide it. You are saying it like thats news. Its just irrelevant in the context of the topic.

Also, you have no idea of my position on the question, so you don't know what charge would be levelled at it.

Nodin · 09-10-2012 4:00pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm afraid they do(..........)at the claims and try to discover where the facts are. So again, looking at the points he makes, and asking if he has a point or not is what is required IMO.

Welcome back Jimi. Would care to answer the questions raised by a number of posters?

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 4:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I do have an ideology. I don't hide it. You are saying it like thats news. Its just irrelevant in the context of the topic.

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, you have no idea of my position on the question, so you don't know what charge would be levelled at it.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

Sycopat · 09-10-2012 4:27pm

JimiTime wrote: »

What they don't do however, is in any way deal with his points.

Pointing out that someone is:

a) Not well qualified to interpret the data.

AND, far, far more importantly:

b) Using incorrect and possibly falsified data.

Does not discredit their conclusion?

old hippy · 09-10-2012 5:45pm

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 5:53pm

keane2097 wrote: »

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 5:54pm

JimiTime wrote: »

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 5:55pm

Sycopat wrote: »

Pointing out that someone is:

a) Not well qualified to interpret the data.

AND, far, far more importantly:

b) Using incorrect and possibly falsified data.

Does not discredit their conclusion?

You can keep going down this rabbit hole, but at the end of the day, he raised points which have not been discredited here. As I keep saying, if you want to point out the issue with them, feel free.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 5:56pm

JimiTime wrote: »

You can keep going down this rabbit hole, but at the end of the day, he raised points which have not been discredited here. As I keep saying, if you want to point out the issue with them, feel free.

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 6:09pm

old hippy wrote: »

Hey Jimbo,

Would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Would you allow minors the same opportunity?

Discuss.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

keane2097 · 09-10-2012 6:24pm

keane2097 wrote: »

You could scarcely be more disingenuous.

Of course I do, you couldn't be any more transparent.

JimiTime wrote: »

No problem. So go with your assumptions, and decide to either discuss the topic or not. Siimples.

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a disease or disorder, then of course I would.

Definitely. If its a disease or disorder, why would I only allow adults to be cured?

Well, think it turned out I was right.

JimiTime · 09-10-2012 6:25pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Well, think it turned out I was right.

Great. So now you see how irrelevant it was I'm sure.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments