Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row

jank · 13-03-2014 04:42AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet not tarnishing your character in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Jason Donovan took The Face magazine to court over 20 years ago in relation to it saying he was gay - and won. Not because it was deemed libellous but because the magazine was deemed to be calling him liar: pretending to be heterosexual when he was (even though just in their opinion) gay.
False isn't enough for defamation; false plus damaging the person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people (it's the stock line) might be.

I think you have proved by point in a sense. If one is spreading falsehoods about someone else they have a right to rectify that in a court of law. Doesnt matter if they are calling one Gay, a paedo, or whatever.

Wompa1 · 13-03-2014 05:34AM

Has anyone figured out why the students union needs to champion for one side or the other yet?

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 07:34AM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

These are the same people who attempted to smear David Norris during his presidential campaign, .

I think that rather sketchy individual smeared himself enough with his own questionable endorsements and comments, and I would seriously question how anybody would still hold him in a favorable, trustworthy light.

Fundamentalist right wing Christians are really not my bag but the way the whole country (or a very loud minority of the country at least) goes overboard these days when one person says something a bit non PC is boring the balls off me. Does anyone have a link to exactly what their "facts" presented were? For such an active group of campaigners they don't seem to have a website.

Adamantium · 13-03-2014 07:57AM

jank wrote: »

You mistake me pointing these facts as somehow defending and even agreeing with what those Burkes said. I absolutely do not agree with their point of view but I do believe they have a right to air them. That is the difference. My rights of free speech do not end when one becomes offended. When people realise that offensive is not enough to shut people up then we can go on and live our lives.

Exactly. Give them enough rope to hang themselves and we'll see them for the fools they are. Let the game run it's course. That's moral hazard enough for them.

PalLimerick · 13-03-2014 08:26AM

Person A: Says gay people are as bad as paedophiles.

Person B: Says because of person A's opinons on gay people that person A is a christian lunatic and a bigot.

Who do you think the bigot is from reading the definition of a bigot from wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Id say both person A and B

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 08:36AM

PalLimerick wrote: »

Person A: Says gay people are as bad as paedophiles.

Person B: Says because of person A's opinons on gay people that person A is a christian lunatic and a bigot.

Who do you think the bigot is from reading the definition of a bigot from wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Id say both person A and B

I'm honestly not sure if the Christian right are more annoying than the PC left. In fairness to them the CR seem to be less in your face and seem to get less offended if you disagree with them. They serve more to "warn" us in their own way and off to hell you will go if you don't agree with them, which is all well and good if you don't believe in the existence of hell. Whereas the PC crowd have a sort of "do you agree with this, or do you concede that you are a caveman" stance.

everdead.ie · 13-03-2014 08:59AM

Wompa1 wrote: »

Has anyone figured out why the students union needs to champion for one side or the other yet?

Because they received a petition on it with enough signatures that they have to hold a referendum.

RustyNut · 13-03-2014 09:00AM

asteroth wrote: »

Fcuk your freedom of speech. That's always the curtain that hateful dickheads hide behind. They have every right to spout their crap but should face the same sanctions as anyone who says something offensive. My two beautiful nieces are mixed race and anyone who screams about a white woman loving a black man being an abomination gets an iron bar across the head from me. Anyone likening homosexuality to paedophilia is lining up for the same brute force and ignorance treatment.

Yay, lets fight ignorance with ignorance and violence.

kneemos · 13-03-2014 09:13AM

PalLimerick wrote: »

Person A: Says gay people are as bad as paedophiles.

Person B: Says because of person A's opinons on gay people that person A is a christian lunatic and a bigot.

Who do you think the bigot is from reading the definition of a bigot from wikipedia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Id say both person A and B

The first is an incorrect statement and an incitement to hatred (illegal) and the second is correct.
Maybe Wikipedia didn't explain this.

20Cent · 13-03-2014 09:17AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure if the Christian right are more annoying than the PC left. In fairness to them the CR seem to be less in your face and seem to get less offended if you disagree with them. They serve more to "warn" us in their own way and off to hell you will go if you don't agree with them, which is all well and good if you don't believe in the existence of hell. Whereas the PC crowd have a sort of "do you agree with this, or do you concede that you are a caveman" stance.

If that was all they did it would be fine but they also try to impose their beliefs on others which is not good. When they do that their stepping over the line.

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 09:20AM

20Cent wrote: »

If that was all they did it would be fine but they also try to impose their beliefs on others which is not good. When they do that their stepping over the line.

How?

I have never had a Christian try to impose anything on me as an adult. I've never even had a Jehovah Witness call at my door. It's not as if they employ chugger like tactics.

Corkfeen · 13-03-2014 09:22AM

Jank, I have no issue with saying that I don't approve of students tearing up posters or acting in any way violently toward the Burkes. However the vast majority of the protest against the Burkes was perfectly peaceful.

In regards to the posters, what was written on their posters would tend to be against the vast majority of university's rules. It targets a pretty vulnerable group of people that have a high rate of suicide because of such bull**** being spread etc.

20Cent · 13-03-2014 09:27AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

How? I have never had a Christian try to impose anything on me as an adult. I've never even had a Jehovah Witness call at my door. It's not as if they employ chugger like tactics.

They are trying to impose their values on same sex marriage on the whole country at the moment. The Catholic Church has been a huge influence in Irish law if it effected you personally or not.

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 09:40AM

20Cent wrote: »

They are trying to impose their values on same sex marriage on the whole country at the moment.

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

20Cent · 13-03-2014 09:44AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 09:47AM

20Cent wrote: »

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

That is a very simplistic way of turning it alright.

Corkfeen · 13-03-2014 09:51AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

The reason Panti got news coverage for a month was because a Think Tank threatened to sue him and RTE. The Christian group generated the initial news story.

jank · 13-03-2014 10:08AM

20Cent wrote: »

If that was all they did it would be fine but they also try to impose their beliefs on others which is not good. When they do that their stepping over the line.

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

minidazzler · 13-03-2014 10:09AM

asteroth wrote: »

Fcuk your freedom of speech. That's always the curtain that hateful dickheads hide behind. They have every right to spout their crap but should face the same sanctions as anyone who says something offensive. My two beautiful nieces are mixed race and anyone who screams about a white woman loving a black man being an abomination gets an iron bar across the head from me. Anyone likening homosexuality to paedophilia is lining up for the same brute force and ignorance treatment.

This post is bullsh1t from the get go..... Freedom of speech is the main freedom. Without freedom of speech there could be no protests like the million man march, there could be no progress. It is more important than any other one freedom.

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum. But they are allowed to say it.... I'll just argue back....

kneemos · 13-03-2014 10:10AM

jank wrote: »

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

It's not an opinion it's bigotry and an incitement to hatred...illegal.

Daith · 13-03-2014 10:13AM

jank wrote: »

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

Having an opinion and asking people to vote on something based on your factually incorrect opinion is a different thing.

I don't agree with ripping posters down and prefer to point out how utterly wrong what that family claims though.

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 10:14AM

minidazzler wrote: »

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum.

Scum?

Are your grandparents scum, and idiots, per chance? As I think it would be fairly rare to find anyone of their age who would be on the Yes side.

Personally, apart from the adoption angle I would support gay marriage (I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster), but knowing how much a No vote victory would annoy people who spout opinions like the above would seriously tempt me to vote No. Purely to punish the overbearing attitude these people have.

JohnFalstaff · 13-03-2014 10:14AM

minidazzler wrote: »

This post is bullsh1t from the get go..... Freedom of speech is the main freedom. Without freedom of speech there could be no protests like the million man march, there could be no progress. It is more important than any other one freedom.

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum. But they are allowed to say it.... I'll just argue back....

Good post.

" I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

Daith · 13-03-2014 10:16AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Personally, apart from the adoption angle I would support gay marriage (I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster), .

Gay people can already adopt. What disasters have you seen so far?

jank · 13-03-2014 10:18AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jank, I have no issue with saying that I don't approve of students tearing up posters or acting in any way violently toward the Burkes. However the vast majority of the protest against the Burkes was perfectly peaceful.

In regards to the posters, what was written on their posters would tend to be against the vast majority of university's rules. It targets a pretty vulnerable group of people that have a high rate of suicide because of such bull**** being spread etc.

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. However there was an indirect comparision claiming that if Gay Marriage is allowed then all other kinds of Marriage will follow suit, the slippary slope arguement. i.e Polygomy, Men marrying boys etc..

One should be easily enough be able to counter those arguments reasonably enough without resorting to 'your poster will make people commit suicide!!' type of argument, therefore we should ban it.

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 10:19AM

Daith wrote: »

Gay people can already adopt. What disasters have you seen so far?

I think it is a terrible idea for several reasons. I wouldn't waste my time even attempting to put it across somewhere as biased as here.

Apart from that though gay people can marry each other til the cows come home as far as I am concerned, although a part of me does sort of hope for a No result, if only to annoy those in this country who are opposed to democracy and debate.

Daith · 13-03-2014 10:19AM

jank wrote: »

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. However there was an indirect comparision claiming that if Gay Marriage is allowed then all other kinds of Marriage will follow suit, the slippary slope arguement. i.e Polygomy, Men marrying boys etc..

One should be easily enough be able to counter those arguments reasonably enough without resorting to 'your poster will make people commit suicide!!' type of argument, therefore we should ban it.

But if we make an indirect reference to suicide would that be ok?

jank · 13-03-2014 10:21AM

20Cent wrote: »

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

...and on the same breath good 'liberal' people like yourself would like to therefore ban people from airing their opinion about being anti gay marriage....

You couldnt make this up tbh.

Daith · 13-03-2014 10:21AM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I think it is a terrible idea for several reasons. I wouldn't waste my time even attempting to put it across somewhere as biased as here.

Gay people can already adopt in Ireland. You voting no to same sex marriage won't stop gay people adopting.

Sunglasses Ron · 13-03-2014 10:22AM

jank wrote: »

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. .

That is what I asked for, an actual explanation of what "facts" these people were presenting.

Of course instead all we saw was liberal mouth frothing upoj the sight of two words somewhere nearby together.

Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row

Comments