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…1921232425

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    Which video is this?


  • Options
    #603
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    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.


  • Options
    #604
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    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.

    They have a belief. Nothing says we should listen to me more than "just because"


  • Options
    #605
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    They have a belief. Nothing says we should listen to me more than "just because"

    That wasn't my point whatsoever. Read the question again.

    I am not saying people with 'belief' will generally vote No. I imagine few will. I am saying that they only reason people would vote No, in my opinion, would be the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently). Same applies to people of Islamic faith.


  • Options
    #606
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,241 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    Which video is this?

    Presumably this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRK-0W5HQI


    It's basically a strawman, because it doesn't put forward the case for "man&woman marriage" it's a case of having "a child being raised by a man and a woman" which is not what's up for debate.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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.


    Of course they would, and I have no doubt they will, because people can be spiteful like that, and I know plenty of people that are, and they're not religious. They just don't like people who are LGBT (in fact they don't like anyone else who they perceive as any way different from them and the way they think).


  • Options
    #608
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,162 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Priest in Dublin comes out on the alter and says he will marry gay couples - The Sun


  • Options
    #609
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    Who is distributing these leaflets?

    Luke


  • Options
    #610
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    Luke

    The Jedi?


  • Options
    #611
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »
    The Jedi?

    12:12 by the looks of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    12:12 by the looks of it.

    Nice.


  • Options
    #613
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »
    That wasn't my point whatsoever. Read the question again.

    I am not saying people with 'belief' will generally vote No. I imagine few will. I am saying that they only reason people would vote No, in my opinion, would be the perception that their religion "disapproves" of it (even if Rome has softened it's stance recently). Same applies to people of Islamic faith.

    I meant belief as "I think" not religious.


  • Options
    #614
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Just seen on Vincent Browne that a Priest has come out during a mass in Dublin and called for marriage equality, and got a standing ovation. In tomorrows papers apparently.

    progress.


  • Options
    #615
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    david75 wrote: »
    Just seen on Vincent Browne that a Priest has come out during a mass in Dublin and called for marriage equality, and got a standing ovation. In tomorrows papers apparently.

    progress.

    Hold on, are you saying the priest "came out" and admitted he was gay and also called for a yes vote?

    I ask because Hotmail used the same phrase above.


  • Options
    #616
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,970 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Guess what's trending on Twitter? #soundsofsodomy

    Dara Ó Briain: "I must thank the Irish anti-marriage equality campaign for igniting a very entertaining discussion over whether sodomy is louder than a bell."

    They might have a point, though I'd say that this band is not suitable for adults, either:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glcH9gdmpns

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #617
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »
    Hold on, are you saying the priest "came out" and admitted he was gay and also called for a yes vote?

    I ask because Hotmail used the same phrase above.


    https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10924783_10152945849141223_7979662654065050596_n.jpg?oh=63da7d360eae104e28aa7b8b4d75807c&oe=55326EE8&__gda__=1428919557_85a19f5266679a4159468db504d23a95


  • Options
    #618
    Deenie123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭Deenie123


    If that's where it ends, this is fantastic news. That might put some religious peoples minds at ease that they aren't opposing the church. It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction it generates from higher up, though.


  • Options
    #619
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #620
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    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.


  • Options
    #621
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭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 ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #623
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #624
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #625
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #626
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #627
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #628
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #629
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #630
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭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?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭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?


Advertisement