Full rights for the LGBT community.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

It being such a convenient label to hurl at people no matter what their level of support of traditional cultural that its certainly not going away anytime soon. Given as well its extension in ensuring one's browser is worked on only by people deemed of political correct backgrounds URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/03/mozilla_brendan_eich_ceo_quits/"]link to Register[/URLit is the tag that keeps on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of tolerance :rolleyes:

.....well, you're free to never marry a person of your gender and nobody proposes any different. If you can tell me what's tolerant about preventing two adults of the same gender marrying, I'd be glad to listen.

comongethappy

Manach wrote: »

It being such a convenient label to hurl at people no matter what their level of support of traditional cultural that its certainly not going away anytime soon. Given as well its extension in ensuring one's browser is worked on only by people deemed of political correct backgrounds it is the tag that keeps on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of tolerance :rolleyes:

I've read that twice.

No idea what its supposed to mean!

aloyisious

Manach wrote: »

It being such a convenient label to hurl at people no matter what their level of support of traditional cultural that its certainly not going away anytime soon. Given as well its extension in ensuring one's browser is worked on only by people deemed of political correct backgrounds URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/03/mozilla_brendan_eich_ceo_quits/"]link to Register[/URLit is the tag that keeps on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of tolerance :rolleyes:

Having a phobia is classed as having a fear of some object or situation that is disproportionate to any actual posed. Even the thought of the object or situation can cause distress or upset. I'm still waiting for people who don't like LGBT people to give a rational explanation for the fear or personal threat they see in LGBT persons.

I would suggest that stating that Same Sex Civil Marriage is a threat to the institution of religious marriage and belief - coded as traditional culture - as a reason to stop politicians from extending the franchise of Civil Marriage to same sex couples is being more divisive to civil society than any extension of the franchise. It is the tag that keep's on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of marriage.

Your ability to post on this topic show's that there is NO politically-correct bar being applied to you here. I hope you keep doing posting, as without such action there will be no broadening of minds. I'm also hoping that I did not misread/misunderstand what you wrote about labels, traditional culture and being PC.

Richard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He would have been subject to the same abuse if he appeared in a straight adult video...

If the GAA paid their players with all that money they rake in every year they wouldn't have to resort to extra 'work' to pay the bills.

CrabRevolution

Richard wrote: »

If the GAA paid their players with all that money they rake in every year they wouldn't have to resort to extra 'work' to pay the bills.

You could just as easily say that if he was just paid more in his normal job he wouldnt have to resort to this, because it makes as much sense as saying this has anything to do with the GAA.

Its not like hurling or football that racks up the bills for lads. Physios and mileage are already covered, so they arent left out of pocket.

He'd have bills to pay whether or not he plays Gaelic games, what responsibility have the GAA for paying his bills?

Nodin

....as he's actually an ex-player, I presume the remark was a tad humorous.

CrabRevolution

Nodin wrote: »

....as he's actually an ex-player, I presume the remark was a tad humorous.

Is he? I was under the impression he now played for London.

If it was a joke then it was over my head and I may have overreacted. To be fair it reads like a typical anti GAA rant you often see round these parts....

Nodin

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Is he? I was under the impression he now played for London.

If it was a joke then it was over my head and I may have overreacted. To be fair it reads like a typical anti GAA rant you often see round these parts....

You're right. The article I read just said he was ex-tyrone, so I presumed he was no longer playing.

Richard

CrabRevolution wrote: »

You could just as easily say that if he was just paid more in his normal job he wouldnt have to resort to this, because it makes as much sense as saying this has anything to do with the GAA.

Its not like hurling or football that racks up the bills for lads. Physios and mileage are already covered, so they arent left out of pocket.

He'd have bills to pay whether or not he plays Gaelic games, what responsibility have the GAA for paying his bills?

Because if he played Soccer or Rugby, he would be paid. The GAA aren't short of a few bob. Getting off-topic I know, but he is/was part of an organisation which rakes in lots of money but had to resort to something like this to pay the bills.

Black Swan

Richard wrote: »

Getting off-topic I know...

MOD REMINDER: Some of the recent posts on this thread are drifting off-topic, and reported by our members. Let's get back on topic. The OP was:

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

It being such a convenient label to hurl at people no matter what their level of support of traditional cultural that its certainly not going away anytime soon. Given as well its extension in ensuring one's browser is worked on only by people deemed of political correct backgrounds URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/03/mozilla_brendan_eich_ceo_quits/"]link to Register[/URLit is the tag that keeps on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of tolerance :rolleyes:

I wonder if Manach will return, or if this is just a usual drive-by post from him. :rolleyes:

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder if Manach will return, or if this is just a usual drive-by post from him. :rolleyes:

I hope he/she does. The post was a bit different from those of a gay couple I know from Cork who are still practicing R/C christians, who he/she might learn something from.

aloyisious

Meantime, back in the home of the brave, land of the free, it's all their own fault...... I suppose that includes death by suicide as well. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/07/linda-harvey-homeless-gay-teens-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

NuMarvel

The Justice Committee starts pre-legislative scrutiny this week on the general scheme of the Child & Family Relationships Bill:

What's on this week

The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will meet in public session on Wednesday 9 April 2014 at 9.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. in CR2 LH2000 to hold hearings on submissions received in relation to the Heads of the Children and Family Relationships Bill:

9.30 a.m.

Representatives from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland; NUI Galway; Law Society of Ireland; One Family and Officials from the Department of Justice and Equality will be in attendance

2.00 p.m. (resumed)

Representatives from University College Cork; Treoir; Family & Life; Gay and Lesbian Network (GLEN); Children's Rights Alliance; National Women's Council of Ireland (NWCI); Barnardos; The Equality Authority; Marriage Equality and Officials from the Department of Justice and Equality will also be in attendance

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/jde-committee/

The proposed Bill would mainly apply to children being raised by heterosexual parents (e.g. unmarried fathers would get automatic guardianship), but some provisions will also apply to gay and lesbian couples. For example, the Bill will set out how parentage can be assigned for couples who use assisted reproduction or non-commercial surrogacy, and the Bill would also step-parents, including civil partners, apply for guardianship or custody. The Bill also allows gay and lesbian couples in a civil partnership to apply to adopt jointly.

There's more info on the proposed Bill here - http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/01/minister-shatter-publishes-general-scheme-of-children-and-family-relationships-bill-for-consultation/?cat=12.

I'm glad to see this matter is progressing. Whatever one's stance is on whether or not children should be raised by gay and lesbian couples, the reality is that children are being raised by gay and lesbian couples and the law should ensure those children have the same legal rights and protections as their peers.

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder if Manach will return, or if this is just a usual drive-by post from him. :rolleyes:

You called.
I was rather engrossed with the example of PC tolerance and open mindedness that was occurring on the other side of the Atlantic in connection to the Mozilla CEO affair and speculating on the bright future that betokens.

Corkfeen

Manach wrote: »

You called.
I was rather engrossed with the example of PC tolerance and open mindedness that was occurring on the other side of the Atlantic in connection to the Mozilla CEO affair and speculating on the bright future that betokens.

It's technically the free market in action. It's bad PR for Mozilla to have a guy in charge who funded something as controversial and bigoted as proposition 8. Companies prefer not to have CEOs who's lives garner controversy. And publicly available information on who he funds is fair game for criticism.

Manach

Insert insulting and abusive comment on those who denigerated the Prop 8 here. Given that this is now a matter of pure subjective opinion and stating such an action is bigotted merely shows the term has become more a mode of

And those who

Your use of "bigoted" is content free. It is an abusive term hurled against political enemies. Just as you would pay no heed to how supporters of - say Prop-8 would hurl back. It is ironic though. One of the reasons that homosexaulity in the UK was de-criminalised was a fear of blacklisting/blackmail. Now it is a case that mere grudging acceptance is not enough, that a failure to follow the evolving line on LGBTqwerty is grounds for an astroturf campaign against by Brendan Eich for his past actions. To quote one article from Slate, 1 down, 35000 (of Prop 8) more to go.
Mozilla is a company, it acted in its own best interest. The free market as you say. However, this action based on Mozilla's own feedback section might have backfired and has loss a substantial amount of goodwill. From a wider perspective demonstrates that it is not a supposed Tolerance that is the end goal - but a re-ordering of society to establish a new orthodoxy.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

One of the reasons that homosexaulity in the UK was criminalised was a fear of blacklisting/blackmail.

That's bollocks, it was religiously-inspired bigotry above all else.

Perhaps being labelled as a bigot will make you feel empathy for those whom your ideological comrades called "deviants", "f****ts" and "queers".

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That's bollocks, it was religiously-inspired bigotry above all else.

Perhaps being labelled as a bigot will make you feel empathy for those whom your ideological comrades called "deviants", "f****ts" and "queers".

That was a typo - it should have read "de-criminalised"

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Your use of "bigoted" is content free. It is an abusive term hurled against political enemies.

You believe that bigotry doesn't exist, or simply that views you sympathise with couldn't possibly be bigoted?

aloyisious

@Manach: I'm not sure in which context you mean "one of the reasons homosexuality in the UK was de-criminalized was a fear of blacklisting/blackmail". Were you referring to MP's voting to de-criminalization homosexuality for fear of losing votes and being replaced in the Commons, or the recognized fact that for many years homosexuals were blackmailed when found in compromising situations and/or stings, thus ending homosexuality being defined as a criminal act would eliminate homos from blackmail?

Given the dictionary definition of grudging, something you can check on yourself so the answer is what you find yourself, I think that using the words "grudgng" and "acceptance" in conjunction with each other is oxymoronic. LOL

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

You called.
I was rather engrossed with the example of PC tolerance and open mindedness that was occurring on the other side of the Atlantic in connection to the Mozilla CEO affair and speculating on the bright future that betokens.

He wouldn't have lasted if he had similar attitudes to blacks, Jews, Hispanics or various other minorities, so I can't say why there should be an exception for homophobia.

Manach

Nodin wrote: »

He wouldn't have lasted if he had similar attitudes to blacks, Jews, Hispanics or various other minorities, so I can't say why there should be an exception for homophobia.

Because a significant proportion of the public/institutions are regard such behaviour as wrong (with keeping the US example many of those same social actors were prominent in the 60's civil right), that there are certain behaviours that cannot be declared right no matter who might declare it to be otherwise - which over the past century we've had social re-engineering on a grand scale, and this is just another such experiment.

That this Prop-8 was one that was put before the electorate and subject to the same procedural criteria as any other normal one. By attempting to retrospectively punish those who supported it introduces a base line that anything less than conformity will bring a punishment - "That the Gay Mafia will get you", is how I believe that Bill Maher phrased - it disregards how the public voted.
You've thus spoken of tolerance, but that seems in conclusion to ring hallow: in that only extends to those that believe just as you do.

Manach

oscarBravo wrote: »

You believe that bigotry doesn't exist, or simply that views you sympathise with couldn't possibly be bigoted?

Or else that considering the source, could not give a toss.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Because a significant proportion of the public/institutions are regard such behaviour as wrong (with keeping the US example many of those same social actors were prominent in the 60's civil right), that there are certain behaviours that cannot be declared right no matter who might declare it to be otherwise - which over the past century we've had social re-engineering on a grand scale, and this is just another such experiment.
.

So you're trying to justify racism now?

Manach wrote: »

That this Prop-8 was one that was put before the electorate and subject to the same procedural criteria as any other normal one. By attempting to retrospectively punish those who supported it introduces a base line that anything less than conformity will bring a punishment - "That the Gay Mafia will get you", is how I believe that Bill Maher phrased - it disregards how the public voted.
You've thus spoken of tolerance, but that seems in conclusion to ring hallow: in that only extends to those that believe just as you do.

He was free to hate them all he wanted in his own headspace. Once he ventured outside of that he suffered the consequences and rightly so.

Manach

Nodin wrote: »

So you're trying to justify racism now?


He was free to hate them all he wanted in his own headspace. Once he ventured outside of that he suffered the consequences and rightly so.

So always grand tactic, shout racism and claim victory. With of a side effect, if using your version of logic, to make it de facto very difficult to gain employment for opposing political initiatives, like Prop-8. I guess anyone who does not fall into line in the upcoming referendum here is due a spell on the dole. Thus it will be interesting to see in months ahead whether the Mozilla will thrive or have its market share collapse due giving into the PC-brigade who are saving us for the -Isms of the world, one scapegoat at a time.

Corkfeen

Mozilla won't collapse and wouldn't have even if he stayed on. But companies have images to maintain,Eich negatively hits the image. There's nothing intolerant about holding dickish views in little regard.I'm intolerant of racism,homophobia,sexism and many other negative things.However there is nothing bad about holding such views in disdain because they are archaic,nasty and attempt to hit vulnerabilities. In the past few days a teacher had to resign because they came out as gay,that's a hell of a lot worse tbh. The teacher was born that way while Eich developed such a horrible viewpoint.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Or else that considering the source, could not give a toss.

Yeah, that just looks like an evasion.

I consider proposition 8 to have been a bigoted piece of legislation. It was designed for the specific purpose of copper-fastening discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. It is bigoted in precisely the same way as a proposition declaring marriage to only be valid between members of the same race would be.

Now, it seems (although I'm not sure, because you're being evasive) that you don't consider it bigoted to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. It's also not clear whether or not you consider racism to be a form of bigotry, as it happens, but that's somewhat less relevant.

If you don't think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry, can you explain why?

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

So always grand tactic, shout racism and claim victory. ............

You were the one who dragged up civil rights and the rest. If you want to explain that far from clear paragraph of yours to me and show what you really meant, feel free.

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

It is bigoted in precisely the same way as a proposition declaring marriage to only be valid between members of the same race would be.

One of the main casualties in this debate has been the English language. Two things which are not the same are not only declared to be the same, but precisely the same, as if the general falsehood was not enough.

Prohibitting marriage between people of different races is bigotry because your race does not in any way affect marriage relations between a man and woman. If two blind people got married they could not tell what race they were. Same sex relationships are quite different, two blind people would have no problems whatsoever determining the sex of the other.

These falsehoods permeate the entire debate. Even the title of this thread implies discrimination against LBGT people, when this does not exist in the terms implied. Everyone can get married on the same basis as everyone else, they can find a non related unmarried person of the opposite sex and get them to agree to marry you. Falsehoods are perhaps inevitable in the politics forum, but this topic takes the biscuit for distortion of language.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Everyone can get married on the same basis as everyone else, they can find a non related unmarried person of the opposite sex and get them to agree to marry you.

That's ever so charitable of you. Miscegenation laws were also non-discriminatory: they allowed anybody to marry people of their own race.

What really bothers me about deeply, horribly offensive remarks like the above is that there are only two justifications for them: either you genuinely don't understand that it's offensive, or you do. Both explanations are horrific in their own way.

eta:

Prohibitting marriage between people of different races is bigotry because your race does not in any way affect marriage relations between a man and woman.

Congratulations on a near-perfect example of the logical fallacy called "begging the question".

Phill Ewinn

Manach wrote: »

Because a significant proportion of the public/institutions are regard such behaviour as wrong (with keeping the US example many of those same social actors were prominent in the 60's civil right), that there are certain behaviours that cannot be declared right no matter who might declare it to be otherwise - which over the past century we've had social re-engineering on a grand scale, and this is just another such experiment.

That this Prop-8 was one that was put before the electorate and subject to the same procedural criteria as any other normal one. By attempting to retrospectively punish those who supported it introduces a base line that anything less than conformity will bring a punishment - "That the Gay Mafia will get you", is how I believe that Bill Maher phrased - it disregards how the public voted.
You've thus spoken of tolerance, but that seems in conclusion to ring hallow: in that only extends to those that believe just as you do.

I often wonder what people believe inspired this change in attitude to gay marriage.

oscarBravo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I often wonder what people believe inspired this change in attitude to gay marriage.

Shifting societal norms, and a general trend away from treating some people as less deserving of civil and human rights just because some religions disapprove of their sexual orientation.

Corkfeen

In regards to the English language,it has been constantly evolving unless the previous poster wishes to return to old English. A stagnant language that never changes is a dead one which English obviously is not.

The change in itself is rather debatable, marriage is rather broad in terms of what it means. Going by the previous poster,marriage between a single man and woman is the only form that exists..

It's great to see that people are so protective of the English language but alas, it has not fallen siege to the gays.'Awful' I expect means awe inspiring to you. Bullies are sweethearts etc. The English language's feelings have not been hurt by it's evolution.

aloyisious

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

One of the main casualties in this debate has been the English language. Two things which are not the same are not only declared to be the same, but precisely the same, as if the general falsehood was not enough.

Prohibitting marriage between people of different races is bigotry because your race does not in any way affect marriage relations between a man and woman. If two blind people got married they could not tell what race they were. Same sex relationships are quite different, two blind people would have no problems whatsoever determining the sex of the other.

These falsehoods permeate the entire debate. Even the title of this thread implies discrimination against LBGT people, when this does not exist in the terms implied. Everyone can get married on the same basis as everyone else, they can find a non related unmarried person of the opposite sex and get them to agree to marry you. Falsehoods are perhaps inevitable in the politics forum, but this topic takes the biscuit for distortion of language.

I looked up bigoted in:https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fbigot&ei=z3FGU_vFGc3A7AbHs4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNFTzuBByata-eaKZZbx7l1yKTfAQA&bvm=bv.64507335,d.ZGU.... and found this definition in Para 2... Bigot..... a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices... So I suppose that if one is/was to to hold an opinion steadfastly for one side or the other, one could be described as a bigot. I hold the opinion that there is nothing, other than a man-made piece of paperwork, preventing Civil Marriage being extended to Male and Female homosexuals. Some of those persons opposed to that hold their opinion steadfastly that marriage in all it's definitions (including Civil Marriage) was intended solely for heterosexual couples. That might tend to make both me and those opposed to the extension of Civil Marriage to male and female homosexual couples bigoted. Quote: the word means exactly what I want it to mean and nothing else.... LOL

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I often wonder what people believe inspired this change in attitude to gay marriage.

Doff's hat,

aloyisious

Elections 23 May 2014, EU Parliament and Local Elections. I've just got this from Marriage Equality Email, it might be of interest to some: http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate. Basicaly ME are asking people to check that you are on the electorate register (checktheregister.ie) and to check the above address and check on whether your EU Parliament candidates have signed the ILGA Europe pledge to take a stand on Civil Rights and LGBTI Equality in Europe. If the candidate/s haven't signed the ILGA pledge, then they might not have your interests in mind when they go to vote in Europe. Ditto for the Local Election candidates on the same date.Just saying is all.

@Mods, if this is on the wrong thread, please make the necessary corrections. Ta, Al.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I often wonder what people believe inspired this change in attitude to gay marriage.

What do you think inspired it Phill?

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's ever so charitable of you. Miscegenation laws were also non-discriminatory: they allowed anybody to marry people of their own race.

What really bothers me about deeply, horribly offensive remarks like the above is that there are only two justifications for them: either you genuinely don't understand that it's offensive, or you do. Both explanations are horrific in their own way.

That about sums up this debate, a complete lack of substance, only repetition of the fallacious connection with race and a declaration that any opposing view is "offensive" and the justification for them "horrific".

If the candidate/s haven't signed the ILGA pledge, then they might not have your interests in mind when they go to vote in Europe.

It would be good to know those who hadn't pandered to destructive mé féin pressure groups and their distortion of language and who so hadn't signed.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That about sums up this debate, a complete lack of substance, only repetition of the fallacious connection with race and a declaration that any opposing view is "offensive" and the justification for them "horrific".

OK: if you want to bring some substance to the debate, explain to me how you can find anti-miscegenation laws discriminatory (assuming you do) while believing that there's nothing discriminatory about making it impossible for gay people to marry anyone they might actually be attracted to.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

Elections 23 May 2014, EU Parliament and Local Elections. I've just got this from Marriage Equality Email, it might be of interest to some: http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate. Basicaly ME are asking people to check that you are on the electorate register (checktheregister.ie) and to check the above address and check on whether your EU Parliament candidates have signed the ILGA Europe pledge to take a stand on Civil Rights and LGBTI Equality in Europe. If the candidate/s haven't signed the ILGA pledge, then they might not have your interests in mind when they go to vote in Europe. Ditto for the Local Election candidates on the same date.Just saying is all.

@Mods, if this is on the wrong thread, please make the necessary corrections. Ta, Al.

You can see the Irish signatories here

www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate/signed

PopePalpatine

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That about sums up this debate, a complete lack of substance, only repetition of the fallacious connection with race and a declaration that any opposing view is "offensive" and the justification for them "horrific".



It would be good to know those who hadn't pandered to destructive mé féin pressure groups and their distortion of language and who so hadn't signed.

Distortion of language? It's been pointed out in this thread that language evolves over time. A "computer" used to be someone who carried out calculations, for example.

As for mé féinism? Considering that you (based on previous posts) view English-speaking Irish people as somehow less Irish/"West Brits" and that you wish to continue the failed policies of Irish language education, that seems a lot more like mé féinism than same-sex couples wanting to marry.

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

These falsehoods permeate the entire debate. Even the title of this thread implies discrimination against LBGT people, when this does not exist in the terms implied.

Let's examine that.

Can a gay couple get married? No. Why not? Because they are gay. On the face of it, that's discriminatory.

There are times different groups of people are treated in different ways, but there must be valid reasons for that. For example, the right to vote is based on a person being of a certain age. On the face of it, that too is discriminatory. However, those defending that practice, and most people would probably agree, that an age threshold is the most practical way to determine who is capable of using their vote in a responsible fashion.

So going back to the gay couple who want to marry, if they are to be denied the freedom to marry, there must be a valid reason. That puts the onus on those who want to maintain the status quo to provide valid, cogent reasons for doing so. Otherwise, it's not only discrimination in appearance, it's discrimination in fact.

aloyisious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You can see the Irish signatories here

www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate/signed

Looking at the map outlining Ireland with total MEP's, it show's 11 but net-search say's the Republic has 12. N/I has 3, so they're not included/mixed with the republic's total. Only seven of the republic's MEP;s are shown as having signed it.

OK, got it. A Parliament committee has decided that we are to lose one of our MEP's. With the entry of Croatia into the EU, the MEP numbers limit has been reached and we're giving one position to them.

aloyisious

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It would be good to know those who hadn't pandered to destructive mé féin pressure groups and their distortion of language and who so hadn't signed.

Pandered??? destructive mé féin pressure groups???? distortion of language???

Do you include on that list the RC Church, the main opponent to SSM here in Ireland who's agents had the gift of "mental reservation" - when saying to persons in confession boxes "I (sotto voce - DO NOT) absolve you" deliberately giving those persons the false impression that they had received absolution during what the RC Church sees as the Sacraments of penance or reconciliation, one of the Holy Sacraments of that church?

Nodin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

.........

It would be good to know those who hadn't pandered to destructive mé féin pressure groups and their distortion of language and who so hadn't signed.

Do please explain to me whats 'destructive' about campaigning for gay marriage.

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK: if you want to bring some substance to the debate, explain to me how you can find anti-miscegenation laws discriminatory (assuming you do) while believing that there's nothing discriminatory about making it impossible for gay people to marry anyone they might actually be attracted to.

These things are not comparable. One (anti-miscegenation laws) attempts to prevent some doing something, the other is concerned with not allowing people unwilling to do something declaring that they have in fact done it.

Can a gay couple get married? No. Why not? Because they are gay. On the face of it, that's discriminatory.

They don't wish to get married, they wish to have a same sex relationship and title it marriage. The distortion of language again.

Do please explain to me whats 'destructive' about campaigning for gay marriage.

It is destructive of marriage.

Nodin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

...................

It is destructive of marriage.

As no change has been proposed to marriage between heterosexuals, and marriage between homosexuals is just literally that, I'm not seeing how.

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

These things are not comparable. One (anti-miscegenation laws) attempts to prevent some doing something, the other is concerned with not allowing people unwilling to do something declaring that they have in fact done it.

That sounds like you're saying gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because you think they don't want to get married. I don't know how you've come to that conclusion, but you can take it as a given that there are plenty of gay couples who would get married tomorrow if they could.

They don't wish to get married, they wish to have a same sex relationship and title it marriage. The distortion of language again.

The same could be said of any marriage. It's not a marriage, it's just a couple wish to have a relationship and title it marriage. You're still not explaining why gay couples should be barred from doing that.

PopePalpatine

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

[marriage equality] is destructive of marriage.

Your marriage must be pretty weak if it's threatened by gays and lesbians being able to marry. :rolleyes: