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

gozunda

david75 wrote: »

I'll stop waging war on peoples 'belief systems' when they stop trying to impose them on me and prevent me having full equality, recognition and protection under the law.

Your belief system should have no bearing input or final judgement on my life. Just as my life and how I live it/with whom, has no bearing on your belief system.

I would liken the current status quo as comparable to belief systems endemic in the southern states of America which maintained segregation and endemic racism.

It is a great pity that it has taken this long for belief systems which have helped deny LGBT individuals the same rights as the rest of the population to be corrected in the civil code

However the thing I really don't understand here is why as a civil rights issue this is being put to a referendum. To my understanding the pro segregation section of the southern States did not get to decide on who could or could not be granted full civil rights ...

If they had I would imagine they would have also come up with similar arguments that some of them did not agree with granting full civil rights to all sectors of society as it countered their belief systems ...

DoYouEvenLift

Please tell me this has been posted somewhere on one of the >50 pages of this thread lol, if it was the first response it would have been amazing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKM3pyktIXw

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

I cannot understand why you are telling me that yes people have posted here in a manner that is "divisive" and "counterproductive" whilst not being able to point to a single post that is so.

I cannot understand why you would even attempt to try to insult anyone's intelligence by making such an argument given that fact that you and you alone have insulted someone on this thread by referring to them as "simple".

I finally cannot understand why you keep dragging this into your beliefs etc when the fact is that this is a civil issue that puts a sizeable portion of our brothers and sisters onto a similar legal footing as everyone else. It's very simple. Gay people are no different to anyone else. Yet you talk about your offence at phantom insults in an effort to divert this away from its simple logic. It's quite transparent. And fooling nobody.

As we simply do not understand each other i suggest we let it be.

So, you have a good old dig at me and then say 'I suggest we let it be...' eh, no thanks.

1. I am voting yes and I really do not need a self righteous lecture from you about the equality of gay people. I never for one second suggested otherwise.
2. I stated that the leaflet was not produced by the RCC. Am I wrong?
3. I have suggested that the extreme wings on both sides of this argument are being counterproductive e.g. the crowd that produced that leaflet are making the 'No' camp look like bigoted monsters. While those on here who insult the no side just come across as intolerant and bigoted themselves.(see earlier posts on here about all religion being nonsense, all no voters being bigots / idiots / spiteful etc, RCC all paedos etc).

You appear to be looking for an argument with me based on your own prejudiced views on what you surmise and assume my views are.
Just because I suggest a balanced and rational debate, you immediately assumed I am in the No camp. Because I stated that the leaflet did not look like it was produced by the RCC, you thought I must be in favour of the content.
I am not insulting your intelligence. Based on your groundless attacks on my posts, I think you are well capable of doing that yourself.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

3. I have suggested that the extreme wings on both sides of this argument are being counterproductive

No, your first post was aimed soley at the Yes side while dismissing the leaflet.

LorMal wrote: »

I think it would be better for those on the Yes side to avoid using extremes also when setting out their position. It really gets my back up when those who have sincerely held viewpoints contrary to the majority view are mocked, ridiculed and generally denigrated.

There was nothing balanced in you approach except now where it's both sides have to stop which wasn't your original point.

LorMal wrote: »

While those on here who insult the no side just come across as intolerant and bigoted themselves.(see earlier posts on here about all religion being nonsense, all no voters being bigots / idiots / spiteful etc, RCC all paedos etc).

And again nothing about the content of the No side and their leaflet except you don't think it was the RCC.

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

So, you have a good old dig at me and then say 'I suggest we let it be...' eh, no thanks.

1. I am voting yes and I really do not need a self righteous lecture from you about the equality of gay people. I never for one second suggested otherwise.
2. I stated that the leaflet was not produced by the RCC. Am I wrong?
3. I have suggested that the extreme wings on both sides of this argument are being counterproductive e.g. the crowd that produced that leaflet are making the 'No' camp look like bigoted monsters. While those on here who insult the no side just come across as intolerant and bigoted themselves.(see earlier posts on here about all religion being nonsense, all no voters being bigots / idiots / spiteful etc, RCC all paedos etc).

You appear to be looking for an argument with me based on your own prejudiced views on what you surmise and assume my views are.
Just because I suggest a balanced and rational debate, you immediately assumed I am in the No camp. Because I stated that the leaflet did not look like it was produced by the RCC, you thought I must be in favour of the content.
I am not insulting your intelligence. Based on your groundless attacks on my posts, I think you are well capable of doing that yourself.

And you still cannot and have not pointed to any post from the yes side that is insulting yet there you are again saying it happened. You called someone simple on this thread. Point to the insults coming the other way.

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

And you still cannot and have not pointed to any post from the yes side that is insulting yet there you are again saying it happened. You called someone simple on this thread. Point to the insults coming the other way.

Yourself and the little man above you are like broken records. You seem to want to have an argument irrespective of context - why not with each other?
Good luck

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Yourself and the little man above you are like broken records. You seem to want to have an argument irrespective of context - why not with each other?
Good luck

I think we are both wondering why you are focusing on what the Yes side says (or apparently says) and not the insults the No side throws around and their leaflets.

You call me simple and little man and think you're taking the higher ground. You're unable to argue your point and being hypocritical at the same time.

padd b1975

Peist2007 wrote: »

And you still cannot and have not pointed to any post from the yes side that is insulting yet there you are again saying it happened. You called someone simple on this thread. Point to the insults coming the other way.

Have a look at the thread title.

Bigot Brigade?

Straight from the student politics book of sneering insults.

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Have a look at the thread title.

Bigot Brigade?

Straight from the student politics book of sneering insults.

Nah, I'm fairly confident the people who produced the leaflets are bigots.

Delirium

padd b1975 wrote: »

Have a look at the thread title.

Bigot Brigade?

Straight from the student politics book of sneering insults.

are you suggesting that the people who produced the leaflet aren't intolerant towards homosexuals?

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

Yourself and the little man above you are like broken records. You seem to want to have an argument irrespective of context - why not with each other?
Good luck

What do you mean context? If someone says they have been insulted it should be very simple to point out where the insult lies. You said posters on this thread insulted you yet you are the only one throwing out insults. Why are you doing so?

padd b1975

SW wrote: »

are you suggesting that the people who produced the leaflet aren't intolerant towards homosexuals?

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

Peist2007

padd b1975 wrote: »

Have a look at the thread title.

Bigot Brigade?

Straight from the student politics book of sneering insults.

The leaflets are completely bigotted. Are you saying that isnt so?

And LorMal isnt talking about the thread title. He/she said the insults are coming from posters on this thread.

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

We are talking about the leaflet here "bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets". Are you saying they aren't bigoted?

Peist2007

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

Explain the difference between being intolerant towards gay people and intolerance of gay marriage.

Daith

Peist2007 wrote: »

Explain the difference between being intolerant towards gay people and intolerance of gay marriage.

And gay people adopting which is perfectly fine in Ireland

Delirium

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

"examine the dire consequences for the innocent if homosexuals are given access to the scacrament of marriage"

"should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

"should the sounds of sodomy echo in the halls of Christian homes?"

Definitely reads to me that they have issues with homosexuality in general and not just with the idea of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Daith

SW wrote: »

"examine the dire consequences for the innocent if homosexuals are given access to the scacrament of marriage"

"should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

"should the sounds of sodomy echo in the halls of Christian homes?"

Definitely reads to me that they have issues with homosexuality in general and not just with the idea of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

They don't seem to have a problem with children hearing straight people sodomizing each other also!

I'm sure it's all missionary in Christian homes. Don't even ruffle the sheets. Sorry I'm just an intolerant yes voter.

bb1234567

Cant gay people already adopt though..?

floggg

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

The question is, would someone vote No for any other reason than the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently)? Personally I doubt it.

Yes - homophobia, ignorance or confusion.

It's our job to help dispel the latter two. The first one is more difficult to deal with though.

Daith

bb1234567 wrote: »

Cant gay people already adopt though..?

Yes

People who don't think gay people can adopt in Ireland are misinformed.

A single gay person can adopt

Legislation regardless of the outcome of the referendum will mean civil partnered couples can adopt.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

Nah, I'm fairly confident the people who produced the leaflets are bigots.

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

Zubeneschamali

gozunda wrote: »

However the thing I really don't understand here is why as a civil rights issue this is being put to a referendum.

It is unfortunate, but there is a risk that the old geezers on the Supreme Court would read our Constitution as saying no to SSM. Changing it to make that impossible requires a referendum.

It is ridiculous that gay citizens have to ask a majority to approve equal rights for all, but on the plus side, a comprehensive win will be another kick in the goolies for the Sounds of Sodomy crew.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

Christ is calling them to action so how many people do you need for a brigade.

Although I think that's rather insulting to Christ tbh.

floggg

padd b1975 wrote: »

Intolerant tonwards gay marriage, it's an important difference.

What, like the difference between being racist and intolerant towards racial equality?

keithclancy

Ironically if you look at who raised it back in the day in Holland:

http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/

Traditionally, Dutch society is organised around ‘pillars’, one for each group of society (Protestants, Catholics, liberals, social-democrats). Each pillar had its political party, its unions, education system and hospitals. It was “the Catholic psychiatric hospitals, facing a great number of severely depressed homosexual patients, who started to raise their voices against discrimination” explains Laurent Chambon, a French sociologist living in Amsterdam, by phone to euronews.

For Chambon, this progressive position taken by Dutch Catholics differs from the official Catholic Church view on the matter, because of the Catholics’ minority status in the Netherlands. “They are a minority and thus tend to be more progressive, similarly to the Jewish minority.”

Peist2007

keithclancy wrote: »

Ironically if you look at who raised it back in the day in Holland:

http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/

Makes the arguments made by the Church against SSM in this country over the years all the more disingenuous in my opinion.

Peist2007

floggg wrote: »

Have they formed a brigade though?

If not, then the accusation is (apparently) rather insulting.

So a group of persons carries out an act that is, by objective standards, prejudicial or bigotted.

That group, in the midst of criticism from right thinking people for their bigotted act, are then described as a "brigade".

And that is deemed insulting by you to the group who have behaved like bigots.

I think no people really need to sit down, have a think and come up with some new angles on this

Daith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is unfortunate, but there is a risk that the old geezers on the Supreme Court would read our Constitution as saying no to SSM. Changing it to make that impossible requires a referendum.

Not quite. The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution as to mean marriage is between a man and woman. However they pointed out that it's not their job to legislate.

There is actually no reason why it couldn't be legislated and referred to the President to test it's constitutionality.

However it could still be used as a political thing for future elections such as in France.

So while I dislike it and think the chances of future parties wanting to make SSM illegal is small, a referendum would be the safest option.

osarusan

Peist2007 wrote: »

So a group of persons carries out an act that is, by objective standards, prejudicial or bigotted.

That group, in the midst of criticism from right thinking people for their bigotted act, are then described as a "brigade".

And that is deemed insulting by you to the group who have behaved like bigots.

I think no people really need to sit down, have a think and come up with some new angles on this

Either your sarcasm monitor is broken, or mine is.