Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Options
1…1718202223…25

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    eviltwin wrote: »
    If that leaflet had been produced without the religious references then I don't think anyone would be defending the views of its creators. But once you add a religious reference all of a sudden it has to be treated with respect. Why should a point of view be respected? I can respect someone who is anti SSM if they make their point in a mature and respectful way. Tugging at people heartstrings by using children as a kind of emotional blackmail is a low dig and I don't respect that.

    Nobody is treating the lleaflet with respect. The leaflet is a piece of ****. The thread is littered with disrespectful scornful references to people beliefs and people of belief. A ****ty leaflet does not justify a nasty free for all applied without any discernment.


  • Options
    #573
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    I think people who concern themselves with what I do with my OH in the privacy of our own bedroom are creepy f.ucking weirdos.


  • Options
    #574
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Nobody is treating the lleaflet with respect. The leaflet is a piece of ****. The thread is littered with disrespectful scornful references to people beliefs and people of belief. A ****ty leaflet does not justify a nasty free for all applied without any discernment.

    Do you not get that the leaflet represents someone's belief so by calling it a piece of **** you are doing the same thing you are giving out about!


  • Options
    #575
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Daith wrote: »
    To break it down

    The leaflet probably represents someones belief (unless it's a piss take).

    You give out to the Yes side for mocking beliefs.

    Therefore you should be giving out to anyone for mocking the leaflet and you shouldn't be doing it yourself.

    No, you've reached a conclusion there but missed at least 3 steps.


  • Options
    #576
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Nobody is treating the lleaflet with respect. The leaflet is a piece of ****. The thread is littered with disrespectful scornful references to people beliefs and people of belief. A ****ty leaflet does not justify a nasty free for all applied without any discernment.

    Yes, people's beliefs, not the people themselves. If someone beliefs a gay person having sex with their partner is bad and dangerous to children just because their god tells them I will not respect that belief. I can still respect the person. I have no problem at all with people of faith. I just don't like the opinions their churches have of gay people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    No, you've reached a conclusion there but missed at least 3 steps.

    Having any belief or opinion does not make you immune from being mocked or scorned.


  • Options
    #578
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    No you havnt got it right. You've got it all wrong. I have no idea why.

    I guess i am simple ;)


  • Options
    #579
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    Nobody is treating the lleaflet with respect. The leaflet is a piece of ****. The thread is littered with disrespectful scornful references to people beliefs and people of belief.

    No, the thread is littered with disrespectful scornful references to people who subscribe to the same train of thought as those who printed the leaflet.


  • Options
    #580
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    I've read the entire thread and apart from posts from a poster wh has bbeen banned for the hundredth time, I have not seen one post even indirectly or subtly defend the leaflet.

    I think that calling those who call it out for what it is (ie backwards bigotted tosh) as being extremists is indirectly defending it.

    As others have pointed out, the most difficult aspect to this referendum for the yes side is not pulling their hair out and dropping to the no side's level. We are all actually about to start debating in Ireland on whether gay people should have equal rights. It is completely laughable and, as another poster said, shouldnt even be a referendum. This is a civil matter and a Bill should be passed which reflects the utter common sense involved. That the yes side, in order to properly ensure its victory, has to give creedance and listening time to bigots is the most difficult aspect to this whole thing for the yes side.

    Unless someone can tell me a reason to vote no that is not prejudicial or bigotted? Anyone?


  • Options
    #581
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Manach wrote: »
    It begins, a masterclass on ad hominem by the PC brigade whose toleration for anything expect for those who disagree with progressive precepts.

    Hey, just because you like bigotry and hatred, doesn't mean we have to sit quitely while you try to inflict it on us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    I think that calling those who call it out for what it is (ie backwards bigotted tosh) as being extremists is indirectly defending it.

    As others have pointed out, the most difficult aspect to this referendum for the yes side is not pulling their hair out and dropping to the no side's level. We are all actually about to start debating in Ireland on whether gay people should have equal rights. It is completely laughable and, as another poster said, shouldnt even be a referendum. This is a civil matter and a Bill should be passed which reflects the utter common sense involved. That the yes side, in order to properly ensure its victory, has to give creedance and listening time to bigots is the most difficult aspect to this whole thing for the yes side.

    Unless someone can tell me a reason to vote no that is not prejudicial or bigotted? Anyone?

    I just cannot understand your argument here. No one is defending the leaflet. No one is condemning anyone for calling it bigoted and nasty tosh.
    What some of us do not like is the complete dismissal of any person (and their belief systems) who does not agree with your position on this issue. Some of the language used is also nasty and divisive and I suggest counterproductive.


  • Options
    #583
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    LorMal wrote: »
    I just cannot understand your argument here. No one is defending the leaflet. No one is condemning anyone for calling it bigoted and nasty tosh.
    What some of us do not like is the complete dismissal of any person (and their belief systems) who does not agree with your position on this issue. Some of the language used is also nasty and divisive and I suggest counterproductive.

    The problem here is that over the course of these threads, there has yet to be one good reason give as to why this should pass; not a single one.


  • Options
    #584
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The problem here is that over the course of these threads, there has yet to be one good reason give as to why this should pass; not a single one.

    Because it's the right thing to do.


  • Options
    #585
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,162 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    But while you are speaking in a reasonable rational considerate thoughtful manner about this subject, and you have implored what "yes" proponents on this thread there are to be calm and civil to opponnets on the subject is SSM, im afraid your being ignored. Mostly because 2 or 3 are only using the leaflet as yet another opportunity to scoff and mock the beliefs of others, and in such a repetitive "broken record" manner too.

    One of the maddest posts on this thread was from you about the tampon demonstration.


  • Options
    #586
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    One of the maddest posts on this thread was from you about the tampon demonstration.

    Ah stop, not tampons again :(


  • Options
    #587
    JaseBelleVie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 936 ✭✭✭JaseBelleVie


    Slightly off-topic, but Stephen Fry has announced that he is going to marry his boyfriend Elliott Spencer. Delighted for him! :)

    Hopefully, Ireland will follow the likes of the UK, Holland, Spain, etc. and Civil Marriage will soon be a reality. :)


  • Options
    #588
    Slicemeister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭Slicemeister


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The problem here is that over the course of these threads, there has yet to be one good reason give as to why this should pass; not a single one.


    Which in turn would be objectively and maturely debated, no one being ridiculed for their religious beliefs.


  • Options
    #589
    Deenie123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭Deenie123


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The problem here is that over the course of these threads, there has yet to be one good reason give as to why this should pass; not a single one.


    I can't believe that of all genres, hip-hop answers succinctly and accurately:
    It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
    Gender to skin color
    Complexion of your pigment
    The same fight that lead people to walk-outs and sit-ins
    Human rights for everybody
    There is no difference

    Read more: Macklemore & Ryan Lewis - Same Love Lyrics | MetroLyrics


  • Options
    #590
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    We continually allow posters to drag it into the religious debate. We all know it's not about that, we know the No campaign will also make it about that(and the endless relentless 'children' argument). Hard not to lose th head in the face of such twisted molestation of logic.


  • Options
    #591
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Wossack wrote: »
    theres a more sensible middle ground between the two, and thats cohabitation agreements (imo)
    By saying cohabitation agreements are good,it does classifying same sex couples as inferior and not good enough for marriage for no reason.
    LorMal wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
    All I was saying is that the level of intolerance seems to me to be high on both sides and it is generally counterproductive.
    Some of those in favour of SSM are as intolerant of the 'sincerely held viewpoints' of religious people (which you mocked) as the bigots are intolerant of homosexuality.
    The people who produced that pamphlet hold sincerely held beliefs, shouldn't we respect the contents of it by your own logic? The likes of Iona have no actual rational grounds to oppose it and their ultimate reasoning is based in the bible, based in the bible to limit the rights of other. Thankfully many Christians make the distinction that whatever one's religious belief, it should not dictate rights of others.


    Anyone care to show me the rational basis for opposing same sex marriage or is it just going to continue to be vague?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Considering the types of parents who would allow their child to appear in such a leaflet it is little wonder she looks so unhappy. The unhappy appearance is probably genuine and caused by the 'sounds' of crazy religious fundie parenting! Never mind the 'sounds of sodomy'!

    I wouldn't put it past the crowd who made this to have actually stolen a copyrighted work from another publication. It would be just their metiér.


  • Options
    #593
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Oh lord Jesus I made typo see my original post :mad:

    So when your position is found to be baseless, you attempt to perform a reverse ferret?

    How typical and low of you.


  • Options
    #594
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    If the Church are so concerned that children get parenting from a woman and a man, why arent they taking kids off single mothers? Why arent all one parent families illegitimate?

    They were. Because of it 800 children were murdered in a religious institution in Tuam, a few thousand in one in Cork, and countless others around the country.

    Don't be giving that shower ideas.


  • Options
    #595
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    Manach wrote: »
    It begins, a masterclass on ad hominem by the PC brigade whose toleration for anything expect for those who disagree with progressive precepts.

    Man, if you'd have managed to get "Strawman argument" in there, we could have called a hat trick.


  • Options
    #596
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,741 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    The sound of sodomy, sounds like a porno sequel to the sound of music where the Nazis go hardcore.


  • Options
    #597
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,352 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Daith wrote: »
    Do you not get that the leaflet represents someone's belief so by calling it a piece of **** you are doing the same thing you are giving out about!

    Whoever wrote the leaflet obviously didn't feel that they could stand behind what was written because they didn't bother to put any contact details on it. The leaflet is beyond contempt from pretty much every perspective. Did MrsByrne say that every single religious belief is worthy of respect?

    Lets not argue against straw men. There are more than enough points of difference between the pro and anti side without trying to force the no side to defend a stupid leaflet that nobody is prepared to defend. That battle is won, the leaflet is stupid and offensive and wrong, now, lets move onto the positions that the no side actually hold.

    Specifically, that homosexuality is somehow 'sinful' or 'unnatural' or deviant', or that same sex couples getting married would somehow devalue the 'institution of marriage' or that a same sex couple would necessarily be a negative environment in which to raise a child, or that the state should be expected to respect 'traditional' views on marriage and not move forward with the enlightenment principles of equal rights for all citizens....


  • Options
    #598
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    I suppose an anti-gay agenda can take many forms. I find the subtle attempts more alarming.
    The cover of the dvd and the blurb for the release of british movie Pride has been 'straightwashed' upon it's release in the US
    No mention at all about its central characters being gay, just about 'an activist group' coming to the aid of miners striking in Thatchers Britain. It causing quite the stir. It's an amazing film by the way, for anyone, but this insidious type of 'straightwashing' to me is more dangerous than anything like that dumb leaflet.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/05/246C648800000578-0-image-a-16_1420457896575.jpg
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/05/246C65EE00000578-0-image-m-20_1420458047528.jpg


  • Options
    #599
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,869 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    Man, if you'd have managed to get "Strawman argument" in there, we could have called a hat trick.

    He's not worth responding to, he just drive-by posts in any threads like these. I'd say he's more offended by the existence of Magdalenes For Justice than the abuses their members suffered.


  • Options
    #600
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    I know several Catholics, and even one Jehovah, who are planning to vote yes to this. I wouldn't say any of them actually believe that homosexuality is A-OK, but they do believe that a) it's no bigger a deal than stealing or things like that and b) it's not the state's business to enforce their beliefs about homosexuality. I know for sure of about three people who haven't darkened the door of a church in years and will harp on about "them bloody queers, fcuking disgusting" to anyone who'll listen, and I probably know dozens more who just happen not to have brought the subject up in my presence.

    Don't like the RCC and its views on gay people? Grand. But it's not safe to assume that just because someone is Catholic (or a member of another organised religion) that they're going to be voting no, or vice versa. When religion is, as it has been in this case, used as a justification for sickening bigotry, then yes, call it out. But don't lay the blame for that at the door of religious people who are going to be voting yes.

    For fcuk's sake surely it's better to be trying to convince people who are voting no rather than giving yes voters shít for the bare fact of their religious beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    RoyalMarine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,824 ✭✭✭RoyalMarine


    I'm all for gay marriage. I'm all for full rights for everyone. But I wasn't too bothered to vote.

    However, after seeing that IONA video, I will be voting for sure and encouraging my whole family to do the same.

    Voting for gay marriage. IONA have convinced me.


Advertisement