NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

Blackpanther95

_Redzer_ wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87886316&postcount=194

That's reason enough to shut down and why it was

Only if a gay person is either: 1) stupid enough to believe it 2) religious
either way I think they have worse problems

Da Shins Kelly

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

The college's decision is representative of society as a whole, why the college gets so offended i don't know. I mean is there really a single gay person out there who is so offended by the poster that they would become emotionally distressed by it. As far as I can see the poster isn't actually homophobic (explicitly), it would only be homophobic if it prevented gay people from joining or called the offensive names etc.

The poster says "I am a child of God, don't call me gay!". That's basically saying that religion and homosexuality cannot be reconciled, and so people are better to practice an "inner life of chastity" rather than embrace their sexuality. It's implying that there's something wrong with being gay. There are plenty of people who struggle to come to terms with their sexuality, coming out is a very difficult thing for a lot of people, and it's very unhelpful and potentially damaging to encourage people to suppress their sexuality. It's that kind of thinking that leads to feelings of inverted homophobia and people thinking that there's something wrong with them. The discourse used here is subtle (which tends to be the case across the board these days because no one wants to be called homophobic, racist, etc., because then their message won't be heard), but the message is pretty clear.

The organisation that they are linked to and promote (the Courage Community) is an organisation that has a "12 step programme" for dealing with homosexuality, based on the 12 step programme for alcoholics. That's implying that homosexuality is some kind of illness or a choice, and it's a completely outdated mode of thinking. Being gay is not like being an alcoholic or a drug addict. It's not something you can be helped to "get over". The society concerned here and their outside affiliates are associated with this kind of thinking, and it is homophobic. Furthermore, it's in breach of NUIG's stance on discrimination. The bottom line is a society cannot promote ideas that are against the college ethos or promote organisations that contradict college ethos and, in my opinion, NUIG did the right thing. They stood by the ethos of the college. Legion of Mary and Courage can go and spout whatever bullsh*t they want elsewhere, but it's not going to be with NUIG's money or name.

Blackpanther95

The real ethos of the college is good publicity, that's it. So yes NUIG did do the right thing by their ethos, but if their ethos is actually what they claim it is, the legion of Mary (technically) did nothing wrong. In 1967 the US supreme court ruled banning interracial marriage in the US wasn't racist (not exactly, it wans't innequality). Now its easy to argue that encouraging a certain practice (chastity) isn't homophobic especially since all (most at least of) christianity teaches chastity until marriages (and gays can't marry). If NUIG is to be consistent (and complete) then all (or most) religious societies should be banned. I'm not arguing that this is right just that it is rational. Rightness is subjective rationality is objective, so one should only debate rationality, which is what i'm doing.

Femme_Fatale

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

WilyCoyote

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

Not unless it's in the New Testament!

Blackpanther95

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

Absolotuly not, good point. But most religion is misleading.

Da Shins Kelly

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

The real ethos of the college is good publicity, that's it. So yes NUIG did do the right thing by their ethos, but if their ethos is actually what they claim it is, the legion of Mary (technically) did nothing wrong. In 1967 the US supreme court ruled banning interracial marriage in the US wasn't racist (not exactly, it wans't innequality). Now its easy to argue that encouraging a certain practice (chastity) isn't homophobic especially since all (most at least of) christianity teaches chastity until marriages (and gays can't marry). If NUIG is to be consistent (and complete) then all (or most) religious societies should be banned. I'm not arguing that this is right just that it is rational. Rightness is subjective rationality is objective, so one should only debate rationality, which is what i'm doing.

It was directed at gay people. Therein lies the problem. If they'd put up posters promoting chastity for everyone in general, it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is with the singling out of gay people. The same way there'd be a problem if a poster was to single out a particular race of people.

Corkfeen

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

The college's decision is representative of society as a whole, why the college gets so offended i don't know. I mean is there really a single gay person out there who is so offended by the poster that they would become emotionally distressed by it. As far as I can see the poster isn't actually homophobic (explicitly), it would only be homophobic if it prevented gay people from joining or called the offensive names etc.

It's homophobic to assist an organisation that views homosexuality to be an illness and something that needs to be cure(they encourage such treatments). Homophobia can be subtle and apparently so subtle that certain like yourself are blind to the issue that it poses. They're supposed to be a charity, these actions aren't remotely charitable.

Such treatments are damaging to mental health so it would be a poor reflection upon the university if people utilised such a service after it being advertised on campus. If a society started advertising a pseudoscientific cure for cancer,would you be fine with that? Or a group encouraging skin bleaching? There's obvious things that no organisations wishes to be associated with.

Da Shins Kelly

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

And there's this too.

Haven't read a good argument yet to say that NUIG didn't do the right thing.

crockholm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

And all they would have to do is point to any one of the people that have been cured of the gay(mostly in the US)to say that it can work.

I don't know that much about sexuality,but what I do Believe is that what they were aiming for is a pile of steaming bullshyt,and at least I would give any student the credit for being able to see that.

I remember LOM coming to our school once,and after 30 minutes of listening to them drone on about drugs and the battle of Lepanto in 1571,I knew that they were batshyt crazy and not to be taken seriously,but also entitled to their veiws.

Blackpanther95

Chastity is an effective cure for all sexualities. There is no "right thing", there is only consistency, and here the issue is whether the banning was consistent with the ethos of NUIG. Regarding the singling out of gay people, that may be the only flaw in the poster, but if you look from their point of view, their not singling out but rather targeting in a positive way the gay people. It is arguable that we misinterpreted the poster to mean that the strategy was for gay people only when in fact this was just an instance (special case) of the general preaching of their society hence their was no discrimination. Also their are no explicit homophobic comments, if they used the word ****** or said something which was aimed to hurt or offend gays, their would be no discussion here.

Annasopra

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

This happens every single second!

Nodin

crockholm wrote: »

And all they would have to do is point to any one of the people that have been cured of the gay(mostly in the US)to say that it can work.

I don't know that much about sexuality,but what I do Believe is that what they were aiming for is a pile of steaming bullshyt,and at least I would give any student the credit for being able to see that.

I remember LOM coming to our school once,and after 30 minutes of listening to them drone on about drugs and the battle of Lepanto in 1571,I knew that they were batshyt crazy and not to be taken seriously,but also entitled to their veiws.

This is a tale which you must relate......

Sarky

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Chastity is an effective cure for all sexualities.

Sexuality isn't something that needs curing, and chastity wouldn't cure it if it was. You don't look to to the celibate for sex education for the same reason you don't look to the man who built your patio when there's a bomb that needs defusing.

Wattle

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Chastity is an effective cure for all sexualities. There is no "right thing", there is only consistency, and here the issue is whether the banning was consistent with the ethos of NUIG. Regarding the singling out of gay people, that may be the only flaw in the poster, but if you look from their point of view, their not singling out but rather targeting in a positive way the gay people. It is arguable that we misinterpreted the poster to mean that the strategy was for gay people only when in fact this was just an instance (special case) of the general preaching of their society hence their was no discrimination. Also their are no explicit homophobic comments, if they used the word ****** or said something which was aimed to hurt or offend gays, their would be no discussion here.

How is it an effective cure when so many priests have had problems with keeping their vow of chastity? Chastity can work for a very small number of people and isn't it hypocritical of these organisations to advocate chastity for gays while they get to express their own sexuality? And I'm amazed that you can say that there was no discrimination when the LOM posters clearly targeted gays.

Blackpanther95

It doesn't need curing, yes curing is a bad word, perhaps counter-measure. Then chastity is a counter-measure against sexuality, and so the call to chastity need not imply that the sexuality is wrong, only that the chastity is desirable. If I called black people to an african-culture society would that be rascist, no, of course not. So the poster is discriminate, but the problem is the word "discriminate". Discrimination of gay people is NOT homophobia, it is simply target one set of people. I saw some GIG soc poster, they also target gay people, is that homophobia also, if not then why?

Wattle

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

It doesn't need curing, yes curing is a bad word, perhaps counter-measure. Then chastity is a counter-measure against sexuality, and so the call to chastity need not imply that the sexuality is wrong, only that the chastity is desirable. If I called black people to an african-culture society would that be rascist, no, of course not. So the poster is discriminate, but the problem is the word "discriminate". Discrimination of gay people is NOT homophobia, it is simply target one set of people. I saw some GIG soc poster, they also target gay people, is that homophobia also, if not then why?

One is a poster inviting gay people to a gig the other is a poster that implies that your sexuality is intrinsically wrong and that you are disordered in some way. If I was gay I'd find that implication an offensive one.

Phoebas

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Advertising non effective pray the gay away services can be damaging and sends very negative messages about being gay. That should not be tolerated at all.

That's the issue you're choosing to ignore.

The poster was advertising no such thing.

But, aside from that, why should sending out negative messages about bring gay not be tolerated?

Phoebas

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But what the Legion said is inaccurate and misleading. Forget about homophobia for a moment - should organisations be able to publish inaccurate and misleading content?

Of course they should be

Wattle

Phoebas wrote: »

The poster was advertising no such thing.

But, aside from that, why should sending out negative messages about bring gay not be tolerated?

Because it can cost lives, it can cause self hatred and depression and loneliness. Since homosexuality can't be 'cured' and can't be prayed away what is the point of the posters other than emotional blackmail and scapegoating?

_Redzer_

Phoebas wrote: »

The poster was advertising no such thing.

But, aside from that, why should sending out negative messages about bring gay not be tolerated?

Are you honestly listening to yourself? It's such absolute nonsense. It is a bit grating how ignorant and naive your opinion seems to be when stuff like this can cause legitimate problems.

Phoebas

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why should sending out negative messages about being black not be tolerated?

It should be tolerated.
The implications of not tolerating sending out negative messages about being gay would mean that we wouldn't tolerate one of the major teachings of the main church in the country (the views expressed in the LoM poster were consistent with RCC teaching).
We don't have to accept the view itself while still tolerating the right of the organisation to send it out.

Femme_Fatale

And people should be able to object to it (which is also exercising free speech) which is not tolerating it.

Links234

Phoebas wrote: »

Of course they should be

Imagine I'm someone who claims to be able to cure cancer (or any other serious illness), and I advise people who come to me to stop listening to their doctor's advice, stop taking their prescribed medications, and take hundreds of euro off them for sugar pills or using an e-meter. I've nothing to do with NUIG myself, but I have someone affiliated with me who has a student society there and I get them to advertise my services.

Would you also say that of course I should be allowed to do this?

_Redzer_

Phoebas wrote: »

It should be tolerated.
The implications of not tolerating sending out negative messages about being gay would mean that we wouldn't tolerate one of the major teachings of the main church in the country (the views expressed in the LoM poster were consistent with RCC teaching).
We don't have to accept the view itself while still tolerating the right of the organisation to send it out.

You just can't. There have been stories of people killing themselves from such treatments, others suffering long term damage all because those these false curses. They've even been acknowledged by founders of such campaigns as being false.

You can't go around advertising something that doesn't work and could lead to mental health problems for the people involved full stop.

Should a nazi party in NUIG be catered for too and have their way of ridding anyone who wasn't Christian?

I wonder would you stop there and see that as too far, I'm interested.

Phoebas

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Are you honestly listening to yourself? It's such absolute nonsense. It is a bit grating how ignorant and naive your opinion seems to be when stuff like this can cause legitimate problems.

Which bits specifically do you find to be ignorant and absolute nonsense?
The poster wasn't advertising 'pray away the gay' services, although there were some links in the website it articles to books that advocate those services.

Or am I ignorant because I have a permissive attitude to freedom of speech ?

Corkfeen

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

It doesn't need curing, yes curing is a bad word, perhaps counter-measure. Then chastity is a counter-measure against sexuality, and so the call to chastity need not imply that the sexuality is wrong, only that the chastity is desirable. If I called black people to an african-culture society would that be rascist, no, of course not. So the poster is discriminate, but the problem is the word "discriminate". Discrimination of gay people is NOT homophobia, it is simply target one set of people. I saw some GIG soc poster, they also target gay people, is that homophobia also, if not then why?

If it called black people to a meeting that made an effort to make them no longer black. Then yes,that would be racist. The group views homosexual people to be inferior and offer reparative therapy which is bloody infamous. So yep, their so called counter measures are shameful and dangerous and target a vulnerable group in society.But you seem to have missed the point entirely at this point. Have a nice rant.

Links234

Phoebas wrote: »

It should be tolerated.

So con artists, 419 scammers and other fraudsters should be tolerated also and be allowed to advertise through a funded student society no less, because free speech?

Phoebas

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

And people should be able to object to it (which is also exercising free speech) which is not tolerating it.

Not tolerating the message is possible while supporting the right of the messenger.

Corkfeen

Links234 wrote: »

So con artists, 419 scammers and other fraudsters should be tolerated also and be allowed to advertise through a funded student society no less, because free speech?

Pyramid schemes should be established in all universities alongside homeopathic therapy facilities. With the funding of the university, of course.

Links234

Corkfeen wrote: »

Pyramid schemes should be established in all universities alongside homeopathic therapy facilities. With the funding of the university, of course.

Oh of course with university funding! Otherwise, free speech! :eek:

Phoebas

Links234 wrote: »

So con artists, 419 scammers and other fraudsters should be tolerated also and be allowed to advertise through a funded student society no less, because free speech?

I'm not quite sure why you need to employ analogy when what we are discussing is perfectly clear.
But its a bad analogy given that con artists, scammers and fraudsters are all illegal activities, whereas what the LoM is advertising is not.

Phoebas

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You just can't. There have been stories of people killing themselves from such treatments, others suffering long term damage all because those these false curses. They've even been acknowledged by founders of such campaigns as being false.

You can't go around advertising something that doesn't work and could lead to mental health problems for the people involved full stop.

Should a nazi party in NUIG be catered for too and have their way of ridding anyone who wasn't Christian?

I wonder would you stop there and see that as too far, I'm interested.

Are we on to the Nazis already?

Corkfeen

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why you need to employ analogy when what we are discussing is perfectly clear.
But its a bad analogy given that con artists, scammers and fraudsters are all illegal activities, whereas what the LoM is advertising is not.

Scamming and fraud isn't necessarily illegal. For example, homeopathy is perfectly legal but is very much so a scam. Reparative therapy is legal but is very much a pseudoscience and a scam. A rather dangerous one at that.

Blackpanther95

Religion isn't fraudelent (for the most part), the society of Mary aren't acting in a way to deceive, con or manipulate for the wrong reasons, unlike in a pyramid scheme. As far as I'm concerned the poster is wrong, BUT NUIG has lied about why it got rid of the soc, and thats it. You can't say preaching your religion is hurtful, its old news that catholics and gays are basically enemies.

Links234

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why you need to employ analogy when what we are discussing is perfectly clear.
But its a bad analogy given that con artists, scammers and fraudsters are all illegal activities, whereas what the LoM is advertising is not.

The activities are more or less identical, they are scammers and fraudsters, they prey on vulnerable people, the only difference is that these kinds of religious fraudsters get a free pass because they claim it to be religious.

Blackpanther95

And yes if a Nazi party wants to be created it should be allowed, and the people should be chastised (not in that way haha) and that would be fairness after all the Nazi party are given very bad publicity due to Hitler, just like muslims and terrorism, priests and paedophila etc

BANNED.

Mod

Links234

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

after all the Nazi party are given very bad publicity due to Hitler

Yeah, that's it exactly, the nazi's were a great bunch of lads, but old Adolf just couldn't hold his booze and gave them a bad name. :rolleyes:

Phoebas

Corkfeen wrote: »

Scamming and fraud isn't necessarily illegal. For example, homeopathy is perfectly legal but is very much so a scam. Reparative therapy is legal but is very much a pseudoscience and a scam. A rather dangerous one at that.

Fair enough. Lets put it like this.
Advertising things that are illegal shouldn't be allowed.
Advertising things that aren't illegal should be allowed.

Blackpanther95

Phoebas wrote: »

Fair enough. Lets put it like this.
Advertising things that are illegal shouldn't be allowed.
Advertising things that aren't illegal should be allowed.

Far from optimal but easy to follow and I guess the law is there for a reason, the problem I have is NUIG is not pluralistic (or whatever they claim) its just pro-gay and even simpler pro-good_pulbicity=more_money. And its sad that any attempt at implicitly claiming homosexuality is wrong is homophobia.

_Redzer_

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Far from optimal but easy to follow and I guess the law is there for a reason, the problem I have is NUIG is not pluralistic (or whatever they claim) its just pro-gay and even simpler pro-good_pulbicity=more_money. And its sad that any attempt at implicitly claiming homosexuality is wrong is homophobia.

So claiming that homosexuality is wrong is not homophobia?

Right. You seem to have really strange frame of thought.

Phoebas

Links234 wrote: »

The activities are more or less identical, they are scammers and fraudsters, they prey on vulnerable people, the only difference is that these kinds of religious fraudsters get a free pass because they claim it to be religious.

I agree to some extent (except that the LoM probably honestly believe they are doing the right thing, whereas scammers know they aren't).
I also agree that what they're selling is nonsense and hurtful and potentially dangerous nonsense at that. But it is perfectly legal so I see no grounds to stop it (Obviously NUIG aren't bound by what's legal.)

Da Shins Kelly

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Far from optimal but easy to follow and I guess the law is there for a reason, the problem I have is NUIG is not pluralistic (or whatever they claim) its just pro-gay and even simpler pro-good_pulbicity=more_money. And its sad that any attempt at implicitly claiming homosexuality is wrong is homophobia.

:rolleyes:

Phoebas

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Far from optimal but easy to follow and I guess the law is there for a reason, the problem I have is NUIG is not pluralistic (or whatever they claim) its just pro-gay and even simpler pro-good_pulbicity=more_money. And its sad that any attempt at implicitly claiming homosexuality is wrong is homophobia.

NUIG isn't bound by the legality of what the LoM are saying. They are within their rights to suspend them.

But don't get me wrong. I am pro gay rights. The LoM are a shower of disgusting homophobic assholes imho. I'm pro their rights too.

Blackpanther95

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So claiming that homosexuality is wrong is not homophobia?

Right. You seem to have really strange frame of thought.

No, homosexuality is mostly defined by unreasoning fear or extreme hatred of homosexuals, (and not of homosexuality) so no, the legion of Mary is not homophobic especially since they are inviting gay people to their society.

Da Shins Kelly

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

No, homosexuality is mostly defined by unreasoning fear or extreme hatred of homosexuals, (and not of homosexuality) so no, the legion of Mary is not homophobic especially since they are inviting gay people to their society.

They're bringing gay people to their society so they can tell them to suppress their sexuality. It's all part of their own agenda.

Blackpanther95

Listen NUIG WERE right in their actions, they just use the wrong reasons, NUIG are pro-gay and its as simple as that.

_Redzer_

Blackpanther95 wrote: »

Listen NUIG WERE right in their actions, they just use the wrong reasons, NUIG are pro-gay and its as simple as that.

So are you against that are you?

Don't think they're pro-gay so much as wanted to treat everyone as equally as each other. Racism and sexism would be stamped out just as quickly.

efb

Not v gay when I was there them

Corkfeen

Phoebas wrote: »

Fair enough. Lets put it like this.
Advertising things that are illegal shouldn't be allowed.
Advertising things that aren't illegal should be allowed.

You said that the analogy was unfair, I merely pointed out that the analogy was perfectly fine. Why exactly should a university be expected to fund archaic hateful pseudoscience?