Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

efb

macyard wrote: »

Ok I concide that people think there is more child abuse is the priest community and think they get flack for it on TV and in social situations as my opinion.

So will you now show facts that prove me wrong

1. There is to more links to paedophilia in the gay community
2. The gays are more hated for those links
3. Gays die younger cause of those links

Sorry I was wrong to have the opinion child abuse was bigger it's the priesthood then the gay community. I did not realise the child abuse links where so big for the gays

I await eagerly to learn the academic facts for the above points so I can change my opionion.

Until then I will have the opionion there was more abuse in the priesthood then gay community

So do you pull all your beliefs or of the sky until proven otherwise???

Bannasidhe

macyard wrote: »

You deflecting

Annnd now we have the attack the person asking the question and accuse them of doing what you are actually doing yourself tactic.

You're funny.

Are you a graduate of the Joan Burton school of answering questions in the Dáil?
:pac:

Why don't you show us how this evidence presenting thing is done by showing us yours for your statements:
a) Priests are equated with paedophiles more than gays.
b) Priests receive more hate too.

G'wan - claim the high moral ground and lead by example. Rise above the petty squabbles by demonstrating that you, at least, abide by the conventions of civilised debate. Show us how it's done dude!

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Annnd now we have the attack the person asking the question and accuse them of doing what you are actually doing yourself tactic.

You're funny.

Are you a graduate of the Joan Burton school of answering questions in the Dáil?
:pac:

Why don't you show us how this evidence presenting thing is done by showing us yours for your statements:
a) Priests are equated with paedophiles more than gays.
b) Priests receive more hate too.

G'wan - claim the high moral ground and lead by example. Rise above the petty squabbles by demonstrating that you, at least, abide by the conventions of civilised debate. Show us how it's done dude!

I conceded it was opinion, but I really want the facts that show paedophilia is bigger in the gay community as I don't believe it and people die early due to it

I don't know why the gay community want me to change my opinion that child abuse is more equated with priests then gays.

but if child abuse is more in the gay community post those links to prove it, I really cannot believe it's true

Delirium

macyard wrote: »

I conceded it was opinion, but I really want the facts that show paedophilia is bigger in the gay community as I don't believe it and people die early due to it

I don't know why the gay community want me to change my opinion that child abuse is more equated with priests then gays.

but if child abuse is more in the gay community post those links to prove it, I really cannot believe it's true

:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

macyard wrote: »

Ok I concide that people think there is more child abuse is the priest community and think they get flack for it on TV and in social situations as my opinion.

So will you now show facts that prove me wrong

1. There is to more links to paedophilia in the gay community
2. The gays are more hated for those links
3. Gays die younger cause of those links

Sorry I was wrong to have the opinion child abuse was bigger it's the priesthood then the gay community. I did not realise the child abuse links where so big for the gays

I await eagerly to learn the academic facts for the above points so I can change my opionion.

Until then I will have the opionion there was more abuse in the priesthood then gay community

I don't have to supply evidence for anything as I haven't made any claims - see how it works?

It is, however, my opinion, that discussion of paedophilia and child abuse have no place in this particular thread and so I decline to engage in any such discussion here.

I suspect (which technically is an opinion until proof is found to either prove or disprove the suspicion aka the hypothesis) that all you are doing is trying the familiar tactic of mentioning 'the gays' (are you including lesbians in that by the way? ) and paedophilia in the same sentence as often as possible to try and form a connection between the two. Word of advice - you are making a hames of it in my opinion.

FullblownRose

I was discussing the attitude I witnessed on this thread with frends and I'm not surprised to learn that I'm not the only one wh has been shocked by the nasty manner of some band wagon jumping, self-appointed spokespeople for the yes vote.

A word of caution, a bad attitude like that exhibited by a number of people here (I'm sure you don't see it yourself, you need to take a look at yourselves!) -is going to put people off voting yes if they weren't already sure in their own mind how they would vote.

I'd advise against dragging the issue out and muddying the waters as some here are doing. People want clarity as to what they are voting on, not bitchy debates and arguments because someone used a word like 'traditional' marriage and the lunatic fringe on boards.ie take it out of context and go on the attack.

Just a word of advice, because I'd hate to see the whole thing fail.

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't have to supply evidence for anything as I haven't made any claims - see how it works?

It is, however, my opinion, that discussion of paedophilia and child abuse have no place in this particular thread and so I decline to engage in any such discussion here.

I suspect (which technically is an opinion until proof is found to either prove or disprove the suspicion aka the hypothesis) that all you are doing is trying the familiar tactic of mentioning 'the gays' (are you including lesbians in that by the way? ) and paedophilia in the same sentence as often as possible to try and form a connection between the two. Word of advice - you are making a hames of it in my opinion.

OK fair enough SMOKINGMAN can you please post the evidence, I really don't want to change my opinion but if you can post the peer reviewed academic studies I will change my opinion

1. Gays are linked to paedophilia more then priests
2. Gay dies younger cause of that link.

Bannasidhe no if I was talking about lesbians I would use the word lesbian.

Shrap

FullblownRose wrote: »

I was discussing the attitude I witnessed on this thread with frends and I'm not surprised to learn that I'm not the only one wh has been shocked by the nasty manner of some band wagon jumping, self-appointed spokespeople for the yes vote.

I don't see any spokespeople around here, just people with opinions on (mainly) how the debate has been conducted over the air thusfar, and how the actual spokespeople for either side are doing. The odd time someone comes on here with an opinion about the merits or demerits of the actual issue, people, such as yourself lay into debating it. I'm not sure I see your problem.

I'd advise against dragging the issue out and muddying the waters as some here are doing. People want clarity as to what they are voting on, not bitchy debates and arguments because someone used a word like 'traditional' marriage and the lunatic fringe on boards.ie take it out of context and go on the attack.

Just a word of advice, because I'd hate to see the whole thing fail.

The waters are well muddied by the usual suspects on air dragging the debate down into territory that they know will confuse people. Us hoi polloi get to debate that here, among other places. The only thing that will see this referendum fail is government foot-dragging and complacency among voters, to my mind. The undecideds can basically get a grip on themselves - if they don't know their own minds, that's none of my business. I'm more in the business of getting the overwhelming majority yes supporters out on the day and the more they understand about the derailing tactics of the no side, the less complacent they'll be. Hopefully.

Delirium

https://twitter.com/suzybie/status/558951684878393344

Bannasidhe

FullblownRose wrote: »

I was discussing the attitude I witnessed on this thread with frends and I'm not surprised to learn that I'm not the only one wh has been shocked by the nasty manner of some band wagon jumping, self-appointed spokespeople for the yes vote.

A word of caution, a bad attitude like that exhibited by a number of people here (I'm sure you don't see it yourself, you need to take a look at yourselves!) -is going to put people off voting yes if they weren't already sure in their own mind how they would vote.

I'd advise against dragging the issue out and muddying the waters as some here are doing. People want clarity as to what they are voting on, not bitchy debates and arguments because someone used a word like 'traditional' marriage and the lunatic fringe on boards.ie take it out of context and go on the attack.

Just a word of advice, because I'd hate to see the whole thing fail.

Just on that highlighted bit - can you clarify where the Yes campaign is guilty of muddying the waters?
Seems to me that the Yes campaign are guilty of allowing the No campaign to muddy the waters to their hearts content.

Also, while you are there who are these 'band wagon jumping, self-appointed spokespeople for the yes vote'?

Is being directly affected and/or a genuine believer that one's country should treat all it's citizens equally not a good enough qualification?

In order to be come a properly appointed spokesperson is there an Institute of some sort one needs to apply to?

I appreciate you don't want it to fail, and I am furious the Yes campaign is allowing the likes of Iona to set the agenda but I am genuinely puzzled by the points you make here.

macyard

SW wrote: »

https://twitter.com/suzybie/status/558951684878393344

Gay people get more cancer? How is that possible? Isn't cancer genetic now something you can catch I don't understand how a gay lifestyle would effect cancer chances

SpaceTime

MacYard: that's pretty much an attempt to slander an entire minority group.

There's absolutely no such link and you are just trying to tar the gay community with the pedo brush!

Very, very low and nasty tactic.

As for your life expectancy stats, I've seen similar studies that are highly questionable.

1. There is no real ability to identify which members of the population are gay and such statistics are generally not gathered.

2. Gay people in many areas that have seriously high homophobia levels (a big issue in the past) often had much higher risk of suicide and depression related issues due to their environment.

In the past and still in many countries they face social exclusion and even state sponsored violence.

Those stats are usually abused by the American far right in various documents. I would suggest you read with extremely sceptical glasses on at all times!

Gay marriage is actually a massive step towards resolving that issue.

macyard

SpaceTime wrote: »

MacYard: that's pretty much an attempt to slander an entire minority group.

There's absolutely no such link and you are just trying to tar the gay community with the pedo brush!

Very, very low and nasty tactic.

I have the opioion of the opposite but was told I was wrong as I had no facts to back it up, I really don't want to believe SMOKINGMAN's claim but the yes voters here want me to, I am waiting for his evidence until I can really believe child abuse is bigger in the gay community then the priests.

The Black Oil

The leaflet's a threesome. Just sayin'

Bannasidhe

Someone has spent a great deal of time going through The Bible and discussing why it doesn't say what conservative Christians say it says http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Will be good to have as a reference the next time we hear 'All Christians/ The Bible says' arguments.

SpaceTime

macyard wrote: »

I have the opioion of the opposite but was told I was wrong as I had no facts to back it up, I really don't want to believe SMOKINGMAN's claim but the yes voters here want me to, I am waiting for his evidence until I can really believe child abuse is bigger in the gay community then the priests.

The fact that you believe that is utterly irrelevant. You're making a very serious allegation against a minority group without any evidence to back up that allegation.

You've free speech but just stating something that's based on fiction and is designed to damage the reputation of a whole % of the population brings consequences if what you're saying turns out to be an utterly baseless allegation.

macyard

SpaceTime wrote: »

The fact that you believe that is utterly irrelevant. You're making a very serious allegation against a minority group without any evidence to back up that allegation.

You've free speech but just stating something that's based on fiction and is designed to damage the reputation of a whole % of the population brings consequences if what you're saying turns out to be an utterly baseless allegation.

That's why I I don't believe SMOKINGMAN's statement and have being arguing against it and calling for evidence of his claim

Shrap

macyard wrote: »

I am waiting for his evidence until I can really believe child abuse is bigger in the gay community then the priests.

Enough already. Who do you think you're kidding?

iguana

Pherekydes wrote: »

Joe Duffy is discussing the matter right now.

If yizzers are listening you might want to put the radio out of kicking range!

I had the misfortune to hear a bit of that at my parents' house yesterday. There was a woman on almost in crocodile tears at the thought of poor little boys or girls waking in fear at night and calling for their Mammy but not having a mammy because they have two fathers instead. She would not accept that a child who grew up with two fathers would not be calling for mammy if she woke up unwell or from a nightmare and would be perfectly comforted by one of the fathers she loves. Oh no, children should call for their Mammy because, biology.

I almost wish I'd called up and pointed out that when my 2 year old wakes up upset at night he calls out for mulk. So by her logic all mothers who don't fullterm breastfeed should be denied the right to parenthood.

smokingman

macyard wrote: »

OK fair enough SMOKINGMAN can you please post the evidence, I really don't want to change my opinion but if you can post the peer reviewed academic studies I will change my opinion

1. Gays are linked to paedophilia more then priests
2. Gay dies younger cause of that link.

Bannasidhe no if I was talking about lesbians I would use the word lesbian.

Been a while since I had to open my laptop on a weekend...
Anyhoo, let's deconstruct what the iona shill up there is saying.

Firstly, one of our regular (genuine) posters posts a link to say that lgbt people live, on average, less than heteros. I suggested, in a follow up post that maybe, this could be to do with the homophobic tirades leveled at them, the stress/high blood pressure this entails enduring that on a daily basis and also having being gay equated to being a pedophile by what I described as "f*cking bigots".


If you didn't notice ionashill, this was aimed at you.

Previous posts by this newly registered account have done nothing but try to equate being gay with being a pedophile.

macyard wrote: »

You seem to think if some doesn't like something they are secretly it, gays get very defensive about the links to gay paedophiles are they secretly in that closet and into boys

macyard wrote: »

Is the same true about so many gays using the attack on paedophiles, would you bet the vast majority are at least into teenage boys?

macyard wrote: »

Has there ever been a study done on gay people that went into the priesthood before the 90's cause they where ashamed and though being a priest would hold back thier drive.

How many of these where the ones to abuse boys when they couldn't hold back their sexuality and as they did not join the priests cuase they where religious but of shame they where ok abusing boys as they would not talk about the abuse while if they had sex with a grown man word might get out.

This has to be the reason most abused children of priests where boys very little girls where abused.

So I boot up the laptop to stick this shill on ignore this morning and I see it has decided to twist everything even more and put up several posts (not just one) to insinuate that pedophilia is now a huge problem in the gay community. Before I do hit that ignore button, does david pay you for your imagination or does he just give you a script? I'd probably give him his money back if it was the former as your nasty, vile rhetoric shows you have nothing in that area.
Keep reading the script shillie and remember, if you generally live your life as a douchbag, people will love spitting on your grave when you die.

SpaceTime

Bear in mind that you'll get international attention focused on this thread and others too. I'm having fun parsing and analysing the idioms, grammar, colloquialisms etc checking for right wing Americans chiming in

macyard

smokingman wrote: »

Been a while since I had to open my laptop on a weekend...
Anyhoo, let's deconstruct what the iona shill up there is saying.

Firstly, one of our regular (genuine) posters posts a link to say that lgbt people live, on average, less than heteros. I suggested, in a follow up post that maybe, this could be to do with the homophobic tirades leveled at them, the stress/high blood pressure this entails enduring that on a daily basis and also having being gay equated to being a pedophile by what I described as "f*cking bigots".


If you didn't notice ionashill, this was aimed at you.

Previous posts by this newly registered account have done nothing but try to equate being gay with being a pedophile.








So I boot up the laptop to stick this shill on ignore this morning and I see it has decided to twist everything even more and put up several posts (not just one) to insinuate that pedophilia is now a huge problem in the gay community. Before I do hit that ignore button, does david pay you for your imagination or does he just give you a script? I'd probably give him his money back if it was the former as your nasty, vile rhetoric shows you have nothing in that area.
Keep reading the script shillie and remember, if you generally live your life as a douchbag, people will love spitting on your grave when you die.

I see you still haven't posted that peer reviewed academic study that people linking paedophilia with gays reduces gays life expectancy.

SpaceTime

macyard wrote: »

I see you still haven't posted that peer reviewed academic study that people linking paedophilia with gays reduces gays life expectancy.

Crude attempts at reverse psychology are unlikely to work.

Bannasidhe

smokingman wrote: »

Firstly, one of our regular (genuine) posters posts a link to say that lgbt people live, on average, less than heteros. I suggested, in a follow up post that maybe, this could be to do with the homophobic tirades leveled at them, the stress/high blood pressure this entails enduring that on a daily basis and also having being gay equated to being a pedophile by what I described as "f*cking bigots".

macyard wrote: »

I see you still haven't posted that peer reviewed academic study that people linking paedophilia with gays reduces gays life expectancy.

Oh dear. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between making a statement of fact and expressing an opinion or supposition (one of those hypothesis I mentioned earlier).

See that word I highlighted in the quote from smokingman? The one where he says he 'suggested' - a suggestion is not a statement. Mind blowing I know.
One can make all the 'suggestions' one likes but those 'suggestions' remains firmly in the opinion camp until the hypothesis is proven.

The difference between what you said and smokingman said was that you made definitive statements and therefore need to provide proof while smokingman posited a suggestion.

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh dear. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between making a statement of fact and expressing an opinion or supposition (one of those hypothesis I mentioned earlier).

See that word I highlighted in the quote from smokingman? The one where he says he 'suggested' - a suggestion is not a statement. Mind blowing I know.
One can make all the 'suggestions' one likes but those 'suggestions' remains firmly in the opinion camp until the hypothesis is proven.

The difference between what you said and smokingman said was that you made definitive statements and therefore need to provide proof while smokingman posited a suggestion.

Ok all post will be prefaced with I would imagine from now on, English is my second language so this might be where difficulties come from.

I would imagine priest are seen as having more links to paedophilia then gays, why are their life expectancy not lowered due to this?

WoolyJumper

SW wrote: »

https://twitter.com/suzybie/status/558951684878393344

Codology?? Is that like the study of fish?

But seriously at least these guys aren't hiding the fact they are nuts...

Delirium

macyard wrote: »

Ok all post will be prefaced with I would imagine from now on, English is my second language so this might be where difficulties come from.

I would imagine priest are seen as having more links to paedophilia then gays, why are their life expectancy not lowered due to this?

you must establish that your musing is reflected in reality before seeking others to answer your question as if your musing were fact.

SpaceTime

macyard wrote: »

Ok all post will be prefaced with I would imagine from now on, English is my second language so this might be where difficulties come from.

Nope, the difficulties are coming from your logic not your language abilities.

smokingman

SpaceTime wrote: »

Nope, the difficulties are coming from your logic not your language abilities.

That's what happens when you're reading from a script

macyard

SW wrote: »

you must establish that your musing is reflected in reality before seeking others to answer your question as if your musing were fact.

Why is SMOKINGMAN's musing taken for fact, my musing is calling out his musing, since his came first his must be establish before mine.