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

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…156157159161162…218

Comments

  • #4742
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    It shouldn't be assumed that discrimination is deliberately intended though. Nor should you assume that pointing out the discrimination inherent in a no vote will change their minds.
    I like the term oblique intention. It runs something like this... Someone is going to pursue a particular course of action, in this case voting no, with the intention of bringing about, or attempting to bring about a particular result, in this case 'protecting marriage'. There is, however, another consequence of this act which may not be desired, in this case discrimination against a section of the population. The issue is, this other consequence is virtually certain to occur. If that person goes ahead with the course of action knowing the second consequence will happen then he or she can be said to have intended that consequence.

    It takes a special kind of person, when it is pointed out to them that an act they are about to embark on will cause, or at least allow to continue, pain and suffering of a section of the population, to carry on with the act, even with that knowledge. The charter prevent me from using words to adequately describe those people.

    MrP


  • #4743
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It takes a special kind of person, when it is pointed out to them that an act they are about to embark on will cause, or at least allow to continue, pain and suffering of a section of the population, to carry on with the act, even with that knowledge. The charter prevent me from using words to adequately describe those people.

    This overblown and over the top approach really doesn't help your cause.

    There are people who will vote No because they honestly don't believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined in the way being proposed. However, they support the beefing up of Civil Partnerships to ensure that all couples are treated equally under the law. And they genuinely care for the good of society and want to see legislation that avoids discrimination.

    You are certainly entitled to disagree with them, but surely it would be better to engage in civil discussion with them rather than claiming that they are causing "pain and suffering" or trying to portray them as some kind of horrible people.

    The polarisation and lack of civility I keep hearing from both sides in the Referendum debate really does make me despair sometimes.


  • #4744
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Mr P, I think you credit these people with a level of intention they don't have. The fact is most don't think about it that much. For them the gays are all right sure can't they get a civil partnership, no need to be messing with the way things are.

    However theirs a special place in hell for the people campaigning with fear uncertainty and doubt. Knowing that their concerns are nothing more than a diversion to distract from the real issue.


  • #4745
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    katydid wrote: »
    Just because people base decisions on their personal bias doesn't make that right. It may be reality but it's not fair. They refuse to inform themselves, or they listen to people who tell them false information and then they vote to deny other people rights based on this ignorance.

    A bias is fine, but it's your duty to inform yourself if you're deciding something that doesn't affect you but affects other people.

    Katy I'm not sure what religion you are, but if it's Catholic the Vatican need you as head of Public Relations.


  • #4746
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Katy I'm not sure what religion you are, but if it's Catholic the Vatican need you as head of Public Relations.

    If katy's user name is gender appropriate I think she may be ruled out of any high ranked role the the RCC due to possession of a vagina.


  • Advertisement
  • #4747
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If katy's user name is gender appropriate I think she may be ruled out of any high ranked role the the RCC due to possession of a vagina.

    Or not, as the case may be. http://voxxi.com/2013/09/05/francesca-chaouqui-pope-francis-adviser/

    Assumptions based on stereotypes can be misleading.


  • #4748
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nick Park wrote: »
    Or not, as the case may be. http://voxxi.com/2013/09/05/francesca-chaouqui-pope-francis-adviser/

    Assumptions based on stereotypes can be misleading.

    Do you not understand qualifications in a sentence such as 'I think' and 'may be'?


  • #4749
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do you not understand qualifications in a sentence such as 'I think' and 'may be'?

    Yes. I also understand when someone is making a friendly good-humored response.


  • #4750
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Boo boo it's not fair! Life isn't fair. My entire point is it isn't fair or right but it's something that we need to counter.
    It's no use calling names or arguing about religious arguments. This referendum will be won or lost by moods not reasons. The anti government feeling, a growing secularism, more and more people living openly as gay people all feed into a mix that will decide the rights of everyone.
    I think the time is right for this to pass but I think it will be closer than 75/ 25 the polls predict. That const mean theirs a lot of anti homosexual feeling, it just means people don't like change unless theirs something in it for them.

    MY point is that we need to counter - we shouldn't simply that that's the way it is.


  • #4751
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Katy I'm not sure what religion you are, but if it's Catholic the Vatican need you as head of Public Relations.

    Not sure where you're coming from there...the Vatican isn't really into encouraging people to inform themselves or think for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #4752
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nick Park wrote: »
    Yes. I also understand when someone is making a friendly good-humored response.

    Never found articles of the 'phwoar' lads mag type particularly funny tbh.


  • #4753
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Never found articles of the 'phwoar' lads mag type particularly funny tbh.

    Sigh. Neither do I.

    I was pointing out, in a good-humored and friendly way, that actually the Vatican (an organisation I have very little time for) is capable of surprising all of us in the people it chooses to represent them in the PR realm.

    However, you've obviously taken my comment in a way that it was never intended. Perhaps that's part and parcel of the fractious and toxic atmosphere that is surrounding this Referendum campaign.

    I intended no malice whatsoever. I was simply making a friendly comment. Sorry if it came across any other way.

    Maybe we'll have to wait until after 22 May and people will stop snarling at each other and friendly banter will become permissible once more.


  • #4754
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    katydid wrote: »
    Not sure where you're coming from there...the Vatican isn't really into encouraging people to inform themselves or think for themselves.

    Twas a compliment! You are annoying me by challenging my preconceived ideas about religious people ;)


  • #4755
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Twas a compliment! You are annoying me by challenging my preconceived ideas about religious people ;)

    Ah ok! Gotcha. You may or may not be disappointed to learn I'm not Roman Catholic. CofI... :pac:


  • #4756
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nick Park wrote: »
    Sigh. Neither do I.

    I was pointing out, in a good-humored and friendly way, that actually the Vatican (an organisation I have very little time for) is capable of surprising all of us in the people it chooses to represent them in the PR realm.

    However, you've obviously taken my comment in a way that it was never intended. Perhaps that's part and parcel of the fractious and toxic atmosphere that is surrounding this Referendum campaign.

    I intended no malice whatsoever. I was simply making a friendly comment. Sorry if it came across any other way.

    Maybe we'll have to wait until after 22 May and people will stop snarling at each other and friendly banter will become permissible once more.

    Nah... I'm cranky today so guilty of sense of humour failure. Had one of those effsakelike days... :(


  • #4757
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    katydid wrote: »
    Ah ok! Gotcha. You may or may not be disappointed to learn I'm not Roman Catholic. CofI... :pac:

    That's great news! I always said if someone forced me to pick a religion with a gun to my head it'd be Anglican all the way! Some of my preconceptions are still safe;)


  • #4758
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    That's great news! I always said if someone forced me to pick a religion with a gun to my head it'd be Anglican all the way! Some of my preconceptions are still safe;)

    :cool:

    I used to be Roman Catholic; then I saw sense! As a lay person and a woman there wasn't any place for me there. Oh, and as someone who thinks for herself.


  • #4759
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    MrPudding wrote: »
    A rose by any other name...

    People are trying to hide behind reasonable sounding 'reasons', 'I am not a bigot, I am just conservative.' 'I am not a bigot, I just believe in the christian view of marriage' etc, etc. That is all very well. Those reason might help you, or the people trying to deploy them, to sleep at night, but they are, in reality, worthless. At the end of the day what matter is the result. This is not an 'unintended consequence' as some posters might try to make you believe, but the logical and fully intended consequence of the referendum, or at least a no vote for it.

    The simple fact of the matter is this: What ever your reasons for voting no, if the result is a no then you have voted for continued discrimination against a significant minority of the population. You have vote to continue discrimination against people that might be your friends or family. I am sorry to be blunt here, but I am fed up with people trying to separate their action, or proposed action from the result. Voting no is voting for discrimination.

    It astounds and saddens me that people need a reason to vote yes to stop discrimination and make the world a tiny bit more pleasant for a group of people.

    MrP

    That's rather simplistic, as well as inaccurate.

    Because one discriminates in favour of something, this doesn't automatically mean that the same person is discriminating against something else.

    Faced with a voting choice, there are three options.
    Vote Yea.
    Vote Nay
    Don't vote at all.

    We all discriminate including you Mr.Pudding.


  • #4760
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    steamengine wrote: »
    It would appear not. I keep saying that I believe in the mainstream churches view of marriage as that between one man and one woman. In light of the forthcoming referendum and following my beliefs and voting NO, that is then represented continually as engaging in active discrimination against LGBT couples.

    It's an attempt at misrepresentation in reality.

    Because one discriminates in favour of something, doesn't mean that one discriminates against something else.


  • #4761
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    hinault wrote: »
    That's rather simplistic, as well as inaccurate.

    Because one discriminates in favour of something, this doesn't automatically mean that the same person is discriminating against something else.

    Faced with a voting choice, there are three options.
    Vote Yea.
    Vote Nay
    Don't vote at all.

    We all discriminate including you Mr.Pudding.

    How would one voting yes be discriminating?

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #4762
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    MrPudding wrote: »
    How would one voting yes be discriminating?

    MrP

    You're not allowing some, certain religious types to impose their beliefs on others who do not share them. Did I get that right?


  • #4763
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    MrPudding wrote: »
    How would one voting yes be discriminating?

    MrP

    Voting YES is discriminating in favour of something.

    Voting NO is also discriminating in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate including you Mister P.


  • #4764
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    Voting YES is discriminating in favour of something.

    Voting NO is also discriminating in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate including you Mister P.

    Could you identify this something please? I believe you might be conflating the term choosing with discriminating.


  • #4765
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Could you identify this something please?

    Why?


  • #4766
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    Why?

    So that we might understand what it is that we are leading a campaign of discrimination against perhaps?


  • #4767
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So that we might understand what it is that we are leading a campaign of discrimination against perhaps?

    I'm not in the business of trying to second guess the motive as to why someone would vote to discriminate in favour of something.


  • #4768
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Voting YES is discriminating in favour of something.

    Voting NO is also discriminating in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate including you Mister P.

    Voting to treat same-sex couples equally to male+female couples is discrimination because......... ?

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



  • #4769
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    Voting to treat same-sex couples equally to male+female couples is discrimination

    YES.
    You're discriminating in favour of something.

    Discrimination in favour of something.
    Discrimination in favour of something else.


  • #4770
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    hinault wrote: »
    YES.
    You're discriminating in favour of something.

    Discrimination in favour of something.
    Discrimination in favour of something else.

    I don't think you know what discrimination is. You keep saying the word when people ask who is being discriminated against. That's not what they are asking.


  • Advertisement
  • #4771
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    I'm not in the business of trying to second guess the motive as to why someone would vote to discriminate in favour of something.

    I'm not asking for any motive, nor asking you to guess it.

    I'm asking you what/who you believe that those who promote a Yes vote are discriminating against?

    You've stated several times that it is discrimination. Can you explain what it is discrimination against?


Advertisement