Things youth defence hates..

TwoShedsJackson · 21-07-2012 4:12pm

Actor wrote: »

Both terms are inaccurate. I'm against gays getting their hands on children, and I'm against sodomy.

And yet you probably have the greatest respect for priests...

Madam_X · 21-07-2012 4:55pm

that's resorting to the same extremes they use. A priest isn't automatically a paedo. But there are indeed some lovely folks who either won't acknowledge there were priests who abused children, or else try to take the responsibility away from them, argue it was no big deal, don't condemn such priests etc.

MrPudding wrote: »

Presumably the abductions, likely involving black helicopter and the secret Euro Army, where the women are taken to the multistory abortionplex which is a requirement of the Lisbon treaty so the women can get their compulsory abortions.

Please, keep up.

MrP

Heh

Seriously though, I could sort of decipher it eventually and it seems they may be referring to a practice in China, which obviously any reasonable person would deem barbaric, but... relevance? It's not like that's what all abortion is.

NotForResale · 21-07-2012 5:10pm

Onixx wrote: »

Seriously though, I could sort of decipher it eventually and it seems they may be referring to a practice in China, which obviously any reasonable person would deem barbaric, but... relevance? It's not like that's what all abortion is.

And they manage to completely miss the irony of
Pointing out that these women where also denied a choice.

"pulling 7 month pregnant women off the street and forcing them to have abortions ".

Barr125 · 22-07-2012 7:33am

Looking at Actor's previous post's in other forums and threads, seems that he/she is either an uber conservative Christian or a troll.......damn you, Poe's Law...

The Youth Defence also seem to hate confrontation on an intellectual level. On one of their protests outside my own college, I asked one of older members what alternatives they were pursuing to prevent the conception of unwanted babies in the 1st place, safe sex classes, contraception awareness, even abstinence information (this was before I read up on who they actually are) and all I got was a cold blank stare and then an angry yelling and shoving one of their pickets on my face. No answer in short.

Yes crazy old man, shove your picture in the face of a Biology student who can tell the difference between a 6 week old foetus and a stillborn 26 week old baby...............idiots.

Piste · 22-07-2012 9:50pm

Things Youth Defence hate? Facts, Science, The Truth, Intelligent Discourse....

face1990 · 23-07-2012 12:54am

Actor wrote: »

Ah right, so being for the welfare of children and against gay "marriage" is homophobia now? Whatever floats your boat.

I have to wonder if you're trolling us.

Being against gay marriage is homophobia. It is. Really, it is.
Previous posters have explained why. Note that you are the only person so far who thinks it isn't.

What do you think homophobia is? What opinions or political stances would you consider to be homophobic?

Galvasean · 23-07-2012 1:22am

MrPudding wrote: »

Presumably the abductions, likely involving black helicopter and the secret Euro Army, where the women are taken to the multistory abortionplex which is a requirement of the Lisbon treaty so the women can get their compulsory abortions.

Please, keep up.

MrP

Haven't had those on the forum in ages!

Actor · 23-07-2012 5:58am

face1990 wrote: »

I have to wonder if you're trolling us.

Being against gay marriage is homophobia. It is. Really, it is.
Previous posters have explained why. Note that you are the only person so far who thinks it isn't.

What do you think homophobia is? What opinions or political stances would you consider to be homophobic?

Being against gay "marriage" is a perfectly rational viewpoint. That you chose to label viewpoints as being "homophobic" reflects your simpleton mindset. I can just imagine you on a gay march with your pitch fork demanding the death of all Christians/Muslims/Buddhists who are against gay marriage.

If I called a gay person a "f*cking ******" or a "queer" - that would be homophobic. I wouldn't condone that. Political and moral viewpoints are not homophobic, despite what you like to believe.

Helix · 23-07-2012 6:09am

Actor wrote: »

Being against gay "marriage" is a perfectly rational viewpoint

here's the thing right... catholics, muslims and whatever else are perfectly entitled to be against gay marriage. they're also perfectly entitled to decide that gay's are against what they believe in, and stop them from being part of their religion. that's all well and good. i've got no problem with that, and i don't think many people do

the issue is that those people who have problems with gays (which they're entitled to have) should only really be concerned with their own religions. if a gay person isn't catholic, then the catholics should have absolutely no say in what the gay person chooses to do (within the restrictions of the law of the land).

this is the bit i don' get. gay people aren't allowed to be catholics, according to the rules of catholocism, so therefore why does it matter to catholics what gays do?

MagicMarker · 23-07-2012 8:19am

Actor wrote: »

If I called a gay person a "f*cking ******" or a "queer" - that would be homophobic. I wouldn't condone that. Political and moral viewpoints are not homophobic, despite what you like to believe.

Surely you can't be this dumb?

Ellis Dee · 23-07-2012 9:16am

Actor wrote: »

Being against gay "marriage" is a perfectly rational viewpoint.

I suppose you could say the same thing about being against gender equality, civil rights, abolition of slavery, development aid, legal aid ... basically anything you don't like.:)

But you should always ask yourself why, deep down, you are against them, especially if you are vehemently opposed to them.:D:D

Actor wrote: »

If I called a gay person a "f*cking ******" or a "queer" - that would be homophobic. I wouldn't condone that. Political and moral viewpoints are not homophobic, despite what you like to believe.

If you said it to the person's face, you would likely get a knuckle sandwich.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You can deny being homophobic all you want, but it won't wash with many people. In my experience, people who find any angle to get at gays and dress their argument up in politics, morality of some other excuse, are actually uncertain in their own sexual identity, and indeed raging closet cases.:eek:

That's why I'd be very hesitant to invite you to the sauna as I do with most people who visit me at my home in Helsinki.;);)

Dades · 23-07-2012 10:27am

Actor wrote: »

That you chose to label viewpoints as being "homophobic" reflects your simpleton mindset.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Surely you can't be this dumb?

Enough with the ad hominems, people.

Focus on the topic not the poster.

oldrnwisr · 23-07-2012 10:30am

Actor wrote: »

Being against gay "marriage" is a perfectly rational viewpoint. That you chose to label viewpoints as being "homophobic" reflects your simpleton mindset. I can just imagine you on a gay march with your pitch fork demanding the death of all Christians/Muslims/Buddhists who are against gay marriage.

If I called a gay person a "f*cking ******" or a "queer" - that would be homophobic. I wouldn't condone that. Political and moral viewpoints are not homophobic, despite what you like to believe.

Rational viewpoint, eh?

Well let's have a look at the arguments put forward against gay marriage and we'll see.

1. If we legalise gay marriage then we'll have to legalise polygamy, incest, bestiality, (other random taboo activity) too.

Slippery slope fallacy

2. Same-sex marriage is unnatural

Forgetting for a second that marriage itself is a human construct and therefore unnatural yet again we have another fallacy.

Appeal to nature

3. Same-sex marriage will lead to the breakdown of society.

Appeal to consequences of a belief

4. Marriage is built on the idea of one man and one woman and should not be redefined.

Appeal to tradition

5. Same-sex marriage is harmful to children.

Aside from being demonstrably wrong, this argument is yet another fallacy.

Appeal to fear

6. "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

I shouldn't even have to point out why an appeal to your particular religion is a bad argument but I'll let Barack do it for me:

Finally, it should be pointed out that all of these arguments against same-sex marriage were used to support anti-miscegenation laws in the USA in the 50s. Nobody considers them valid with regard to interracial marriages anymore so I don't see how they become any more valid when used against same-sex marriage.

Now, you were saying something about rational viewpoint?

Ataxia · 23-07-2012 1:11pm

Things Youth Defence likes:

Organised fascism.

face1990 · 23-07-2012 4:06pm

Actor wrote: »

Being against gay "marriage" is a perfectly rational viewpoint. That you chose to label viewpoints as being "homophobic" reflects your simpleton mindset. I can just imagine you on a gay march with your pitch fork demanding the death of all Christians/Muslims/Buddhists who are against gay marriage.

It's phrases like that which convince me you are trolling. You are deliberately trying to get a rise out of people by calling them names.

With this in mind, and considering it's been argued several times already in this thread, I'm ignoring the rest of that quote.

Actor wrote: »

Political and moral viewpoints are not homophobic, despite what you like to believe.

Political viewpoints can of course be homophobic.
For example: Nazis put homosexuals into extermination camps, as a political decision, backed by their political and moral viewpoints.
Similarly, polticial and moral viewpoints prevented black people in America using the same toilets as white people, from sitting at the front of busses, and from marrying white people.

Back in the day, inter-racial marriage was just as vehemently opposed by some as same-sex marriage is today. (The arguement against it being based on moral and religious grounds)

Just know that in years to come you too will look as hateful, bigoted and out dated as those anti-mixed-race-marriage activists look nowadays.

NotForResale · 23-07-2012 5:59pm

Ataxia wrote: »

Things Youth Defence likes:

Organised fascism.

Handy Facebook album in that article.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.490317147660770.132496.132000150159140

I noticed youth defence keep complaining that the media ignored their "rally for life" but looking at these now i think that suites them, as they get to try play the underdog.

If the media did cover their rallies they would not be able to prevent images of people shaking rosaries at camera's from making it in, they would lose control.

edit: jaysus

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2012 6:22pm

Ataxia wrote: »

Things Youth Defence likes:

Organised fascism.

Great protesting banner there :pac::

joseph brand · 23-07-2012 9:44pm

Vincent Browne will be discussing abortion, at 23:00 on TV3 tonight.

Nodin · 23-07-2012 10:07pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Vincent Browne will be discussing abortion, at 23:00 on TV3 tonight.

Too harsh on the blood pressure to watch at that hour. I'll get it in the mornin.

So far the story of the "debate" seems to be

"....abortion in limited circumstances"
"YOU'RE KILLIN BABIES" "
"...its not abortion on demand, its where theres a threat to the mothers life"
"WHY YE KILLIN THE BABIES"

and so on. My, how we've moved on from the 1980's. Doubtless our old friend Misogyny will enter soon.

NotForResale · 24-07-2012 12:26am

joseph brand wrote: »

Vincent Browne will be discussing abortion, at 23:00 on TV3 tonight.

hmm, thoughts?

Actor · 24-07-2012 6:18am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, it should be pointed out that all of these arguments against same-sex marriage were used to support anti-miscegenation laws in the USA in the 50s. Nobody considers them valid with regard to interracial marriages anymore so I don't see how they become any more valid when used against same-sex marriage.

Now, you were saying something about rational viewpoint?

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Your attempt to draw parallels between homosexual "marriage" and miscegenation is silly and emotive. There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman. There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

Delirium · 24-07-2012 7:11am

sodomy also occurs in heterosexual marriage. By your reasoning, heterosexual couples should no longer be allowed marry.

IT-Guy · 24-07-2012 7:23am

Actor wrote: »

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Your logic is twisted here, you're comparing the potential health side effects with a sex act that as far as I'm aware has no side effects health wise. I know your reply was meant for oldrnwisr but I'd love for you to expand on why sodomy between consenting adults is bad for society.

Actor wrote: »

Your attempt to draw parallels between homosexual "marriage" and miscegenation is silly and emotive. There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman. There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

The same silly and emotive arguments used in arguments against gay and interracial marriages have the same origins in ignorance and bigotry. There's nothing inherently wrong with a union between two men or two women. Also what's with the pre-occupation with sodomy? I presume you're aware not all sexual activities have to involve penetration? Methinks you doth protest too much

seantorious · 24-07-2012 7:31am

Actor wrote: »

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Your attempt to draw parallels between homosexual "marriage" and miscegenation is silly and emotive. There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman. There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

Do you not think that in the future those views will change too? Eventually homosexual marriage (or marriage as it will then be known) will be normal just like mixed race marriage is now.
In the meantime, I'd like you to explain to your grandchildren how you opposed gay rights. Just remember you put your beliefs on an internet forum which will probably exist for a considerable time. The person who invents an app for google glass that scans a persons face, links it to their facebook photo and email address and finds their political and social views expressed on the internet could be in for a laugh when he finds this.

Sonics2k · 24-07-2012 9:29am

Actor wrote: »

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Your attempt to draw parallels between homosexual "marriage" and miscegenation is silly and emotive. There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman. There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

Not all gay men like sodomy.
Many straight couples do like sodomy.
What about Lesbians? Or do you think they say "Well, we're gay, so let's just skip that hole and go for the back one!"?

But please, tell us about these dangers to society involving sodomy.

Dades · 24-07-2012 9:41am

Actor wrote: »

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

You're aware that sodomy isn't compulsory, right? Like rock-climbing, poetry and Morris Dancing you simply have the right to practice it if you wish. And any gender can have a go.

Nodin · 24-07-2012 9:50am

Actor wrote: »

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?
.

There is no law prohibiting the act of sodomy in Ireland.

I'm not seeing how an act between two individuals along those lines will affect me. Viewing and participation would not be mandatory.

Also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghxn38bX7w0

Nodin · 24-07-2012 9:51am

Ataxia wrote: »

Things Youth Defence likes:

Organised fascism.

There was 3 members in his organisation, afaik. They split.

doctoremma · 24-07-2012 10:39am

Actor wrote: »

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects.

Apart from the two drugs that cause the biggest health problems than all the others combined, of course.

Actor wrote: »

Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Yes. Please enlighten us why sodomy is bad for society.

Actor wrote: »

There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman.

You do know that people didn't always think that, yeah? Thank goodness for progressive enlightenment.

Actor wrote: »

There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

Not necessarily.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114912/?tool=pmcentrez

Excerpt: About a third of heterosexual couples in Britain are thought to use anal sex as an occasional method of sexual expression, with about 10% using it as a preferred or regular method. Perhaps two thirds of gay men practise anal sex as a regular part of their sexual repertoire. This means that, in absolute numbers, there are more heterosexuals having anal sex than there are gay men.

oldrnwisr · 24-07-2012 11:00am

Actor wrote: »

None of those points you raised were made by me.

I believe sodomy should not be encouraged by society by legalising for it in the same way we don't legalise drugs because of the health side-effects. Do you want me to go into the rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society?

Your attempt to draw parallels between homosexual "marriage" and miscegenation is silly and emotive. There's nothing inherently wrong in a union between a black man and a white woman. There is however, the element of sodomy in a homosexual union.

I never said that those arguments were raised by you specifically. I'm saying that the arguments which are routinely put forward in opposition to gay marriage have no rational basis. There are no rational arguments against gay marriage only appeals to religion and bigotry.

Yes, please I would love to hear rational reasons why sodomy is bad for society. You do realise that we are talking about marriage here. If sodomy is your problem then you should be calling for it to be illegal regardless of whether the individuals involved are married or not. Unmarried people, gay and straight, can also plough the back field, as it were, you know.

With regard to the health effects of "sodomy", the principal health effects which have been identified are infection, cancer and physical damage. Firstly, infection is a safe-sex issue not a gay issue and so there is no rational basis to deny same-sex marriage on this basis. Secondly, cancer due to this activity has been attributed to the human papilloma virus (HPV). Since we now have an effective vaccine for HPV this is a non-issue. The final issue is physical damage. While there have been isolated reports of anal fissures, incontinence etc. resulting from anal intercourse there have been no conclusive studies linking anal intercourse with physical maladies. So, in summary there are no health effects linked to anal intercourse which would impact on the legalisation of gay marriage.

The parallels between anti-gay marriage arguments and anti-miscegenation arguments are neither silly nor emotive. They are reasoned conclusions based on arguments advanced during the landmark trials on the issue in the US.

1. The religious argument

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

2. The unnatural argument

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion."

3. The "breakdown of society" argument

"Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the white and black races."

4. The "slippery slope" argument

"[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void."

5. The "what about the children" argument

"It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races."

6. The "traditional marriage" argument

"Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration."

All of the above quotes come from the two landmark anti-miscegenation court cases, Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp. The same arguments are being used now to block gay marriage but have gained no validity since they were last used.

Things youth defence hates..

Comments