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…158159161163164…218

Comments

  • #4802
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    actually it does (presuming you vote Yes or No).

    The referendum wording is as follows: ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’

    Voting no is saying that marriage will continue to have a distinction regarding the sex of the two persons. i.e. discriminating against same-sex couples.

    Voting yes will mean that marriage will not discriminate against the persons based on their sex.

    Only one option presented to the voter will result in discrimination based on the wording, a No vote.

    The referendum presents each eligible voter with a choice.

    Each voter is asked to make a choice to discriminate in favour of their own choice.


  • #4803
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You've already posted that, a few times. It's certainly not an answer to my question.

    I've asked you what Voting YES would be discriminating against?

    I haven't made an argument about discriminating against something. Nor do I intend making such an argument.

    I've made an argument about discriminating in favour of something.


  • #4804
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    hinault wrote: »
    The referendum presents each eligible voter with a choice.

    Each voter is asked to make a choice to discriminate in favour of their own choice.

    Oh come on!

    You are playing semantics and you know it.
    It really just makes you look like you can't answer the question put to you or back up your claims.


  • #4805
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You've already posted that, a few times. It's certainly not an answer to my question.

    I've asked you what Voting YES would be discriminating against?

    *who vote YES

    Emmet, I would say that you are not going to get an answer to this.
    I have been in this position. You will be subject to repetition, obfuscation and deflection but it is unlikely you will receive an answer afterwhich you may join me on his ignore list.


  • #4806
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh come on!

    You are playing semantics and you know it.
    It really just makes you look like you can't answer the question put to you or back up your claims.

    That is correct.


  • Advertisement
  • #4807
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh come on!

    You are playing semantics and you know it.
    It really just makes you look like you can't answer the question put to you or back up your claims.

    Language is important.

    Discrimination has become a loaded term in recent times.
    Apparently there are many in this society who are not aware that one can discriminate in favour of something without discriminating against something.


  • #4808
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    Or if the choice to maintain the status quo is viewed by others as a positive outcome for the greater good.

    They choose to discriminate in favour of the status quo.

    That doesn't mean their choice is a positive one. Their choice is causing a negative outcome for a portion of the population.


  • #4809
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    Voting in favour of something doesn't mean that one is vote against something else.

    Of course it does, if it's a binary option.


  • #4810
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭✭✭✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    hinault wrote: »
    I haven't made an argument about discriminating against something.

    I've made an argument about discriminating in favour of something.

    Okay. Are you aware that there is a world of difference between the common usage of the word Discrimination
    The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
    victims of racial discrimination
    discrimination against homosexuals
    and the phrase "Discriminating in Favour of" (i.e, to make a choice from a selection of choices)

    and that to attempt to conflate them as having some form of relative meaning, to enable you to convolve the idea of a "Yes Voter discriminates just as much as a No Vote" as you have here is both obstreperous and ultimately meaningless?


  • #4811
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You started this argument as a counter against someone who said a no vote would result in gay people continuing to be discriminated against. These are two obviously different uses of the word 'discrimination'. You're engaging in wordplay in an attempt to muddy the waters.

    The principle discriminating in favour of something should be easily understandable.

    As I said earlier the word discrimination is loaded in these recent times.


  • Advertisement
  • #4812
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    Of course it does, if it's a binary option.

    The attempt to make the choice binary is evident.


  • #4813
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    By voting yes you are discriminating against the status quo.

    By voting no you are discriminating against people.

    Me deciding to get lunch somewhere else is discriminating against the status quo. I'm such a bigot.


  • #4814
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    The referendum presents each eligible voter with a choice.

    Each voter is asked to make a choice to discriminate in favour of their own choice.
    MOD NOTE

    If you wish to discuss the various meanings of the word, please use the
    Linguistics & Etymology forum.

    Thanks for your attention.

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



  • #4815
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Okay. Are you aware that there is a world of difference between the common usage of the word Discrimination and the phrase "Discriminating in Favour of" (i.e, to make a choice from a selection of choices)

    and that to attempt to conflate them as having some form of relative meaning, to enable you to convolve the idea of a "Yes Voter discriminates just as much as a No Vote" as you have here is both obstreperous and ultimately meaningless?

    As I said earlier the word discrimination is a loaded word in recent times.

    The "common usage" of the word discrimination demonstrates this.

    One can choose to discriminate in favour of something.
    One can choose to discriminate in favour of something else.

    We all discriminate.


  • #4816
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It is, no one is disputing that. The issue people have is you're attempting to equate two different meanings of a word in order to further your own argument. It's dishonest.

    No, again, words can have different meanings.

    There is nothing dishonest about discriminating in favour of something and someone else discriminating in favour of something else.

    What is wholly dishonest and one poster already alluded to this is the attempt to create the binary notion that because one discriminates in favour of something one must be discriminating against something else.


  • #4817
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    hinault wrote: »
    Language is important.

    Discrimination has become a loaded term in recent times.
    Apparently there are many in this society who are not aware that one can discriminate in favour of something without discriminating against something.

    Yes. Language does matter.

    So, stop acting as if there is only one meaning for the word 'discrimination'.

    discrimination

    dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1.
    the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
    "victims of racial discrimination"
    synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favouritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
    antonyms: impartiality

    2.
    recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
    "discrimination between right and wrong"
    synonyms: differentiation, distinction, telling the difference
    "the discrimination between right and wrong"


  • #4818
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes. Language does matter.

    So, stop acting as if there is only one meaning for the word 'discrimination'.

    discrimination

    dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1.
    the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
    "victims of racial discrimination"
    synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favouritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
    antonyms: impartiality

    2.
    recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
    "discrimination between right and wrong"
    synonyms: differentiation, distinction, telling the difference
    "the discrimination between right and wrong"

    Discriminate is to "notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things"


  • #4819
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    hinault wrote: »
    Discriminate is to "notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things"

    Seriously.

    Stop digging yourself into a hole.

    Idiom

    informal
    › ( also dig a hole for yourself) to get yourself into a difficult situation:


  • #4820
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    SW wrote: »
    MOD NOTE

    If you wish to discuss the various meanings of the word, please use the
    Linguistics & Etymology     forum.

    Thanks for your attention.

    .

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



  • #4821
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    The attempt to make the choice binary is evident.

    I have no idea what that means.


  • Advertisement
  • #4822
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    katydid wrote: »
    I have no idea what that means.

    001 11 11001 0101001

    :pac:


  • #4823
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    katydid wrote: »
    I have no idea what that means.



    That's because you replied to a post suggesting that voting for something doesn't mean you're voting against something else, and it moved to a different topic/tangent.
    hinault wrote: »
    Voting in favour of something doesn't mean that one is vote against something else.
    you replied that the vote would if it was a binary option.
    katydid wrote: »
    Of course it does, if it's a binary option.

    The subsquent reply to your post moved away from the original item (voting) and to the topic of "making a choice".
    hinault wrote: »
    The attempt to make the choice binary is evident.

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



  • #4824
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    SW wrote: »
    That's because you replied to a post suggesting that voting for something doesn't mean you're voting against something else, and it moved to a different topic/tangent.

    you replied that the vote would if it was a binary option.



    The subsquent reply to your post moved away from the original item (voting) and to the topic of "making a choice".

    There is no attempt to "make something" a binary option. It IS a binary option. - do you agree, yes or no.


  • #4825
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Vote no because... the word discrimination has more than one meaning!!!

    Finally a no voter has come up with an argument based on fact!

    :P


  • #4826
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    katydid wrote: »
    There is no attempt to "make something" a binary option. It IS a binary option. - do you agree, yes or no.

    Agreed.

    I wasn't disputing anything you said, just trying to help clear up a confusion you expressed.

    Didn't work.

    I'll be in the corner if anyone's looking for me.

    Businessman-Sat-In-Corner-Wearing-Dunce-Hat.jpg

    :o:o:pac:

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



  • #4827
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    SW wrote: »
    Agreed.

    I wasn't disputing anything you said, just trying to help clear up a confusion you expressed.

    Didn't work.

    I'll be in the corner if anyone's looking for me.

    Businessman-Sat-In-Corner-Wearing-Dunce-Hat.jpg

    :o:o:pac:
    Did work. I was just backing YOU up. I wasn't asking if YOU agree. Just referring to the binary option...

    Let's start all over again...


  • #4828
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    katydid wrote: »
    Did work. I was just backing YOU up. I wasn't asking if YOU agree. Just referring to the binary option...

    Let's start all over again...

    this is what happens when I miss my scheduled coffee :P

    re-read you post and I get it now :o

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



  • #4829
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    001 11 11001 0101001

    :pac:

    No, it's 42.


  • #4830
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Really good letter in the Irish Catholic, fair play for printing it.
    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/everyone%E2%80%99s-vote-will-be-equally-valid


  • Advertisement
  • #4831
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    katydid wrote: »
    It's called being rational. You claimed to have a rational basis for your opinions and intentions, but despite several requests, have failed to provide this rational basis.

    People here are providing you with rational argument and it's clearly an alien concept to you.

    I'm following the recommendation of the Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian churches to vote NO. I agree with their traditional view of marriage for starters and their warning about the unknown quantity this whole thing is.
    “A redefinition of marriage would establish new norms within our society, the implications of which have not been fully explored. We acknowledge that this is an intensely emotive subject and trust that all will engage in the debate with gentleness and respect as we approach the referendum.”

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/presbyterian-church-urges-no-in-marriage-equality-referendum-1.2184132

    I can't be any more rational than explaining this way. We know that one of the first casualties of a NO vote, will be the perceived discrimination by the YES side, but what are the faithful meant to do. Abstain is an option too, but the churches in question haven't recommended that.

    I would like to hear the mainstream church leaders expand more on this subject and answer the points from the YES and NO sides. There used to be plenty of input from them on other subjects, no shortage of responses some time back when I was sticking up for the 'Angels' and Lorna Byrne.


Advertisement