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

Burke Family vs NUI Galway

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Manco wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with polyamorous marriage being legalised at all tbh, if that's what consenting adults want then its none of my business. The Burke's scaremongering about it just struck me as hilariously juvenile and quaint, it was claiming that marriage equality is a slippery slope to the acceptance of paedophilia that enraged people.
    That's fair.
    It is interesting though, trying to understand the definitions and justifications of the parameters on who should be allowed to marry whom - in both the religious and legal senses.


  • Options
    #93
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ficheall wrote: »
    And not so very long ago it would have been presumed to be between two straight people. This is a progressive society we're living in.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/korean-man-marries-pillow_n_494122.html
    To be honest, while you do come across as an intelligent person, your "arguments" don't make any sense here and are just derailing the thread. This thread is about the Burkes vs NUI Galway. Many have given their view on what happened that day and some have given an insight to the Burke background.

    You seem fixated on polygamy and it is not the issue for this thread. Let me make it clear for you. We are discussing the Burke family and their view that gay marriage is wrong. Most people disagree with this.

    This has nothing to do with polygamous marriages. If you have a problem with polygamous's marriages, then start a thread on that issue.


  • Options
    #94
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Thanks. I didn't realise we were still in need of yet more posts bashing the Burkes to help everyone decide that their opinion was daft.

    Seemingly one of the most "contentious" issues is the Burkes' suggestion from one of their posters that gay marriage sets a precedent which may pave the way for paedophilia, right? Ignoring the obviously very important issue of ability to consent, applying the same logic leads to the possibility of the legalisation of polygamy, so I wouldn't say it's unrelated to what is being discussed. Is that not reasonable?


  • Options
    #95
    Member 420
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Member 420


    None of the Burkes even turned up to the count centre today is what I'm hearing.


  • Options
    #96
    SeanJ09
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭SeanJ09


    What were the votes like for the Postgraduate officer? Isacc Burke was running for that right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    SeanJ09 wrote: »
    What were the votes like for the Postgraduate officer? Isacc Burke was running for that right?

    Isaac Burke: 13
    Cian Moran: 210
    Re-open Nominations: 11
    TVP: 234

    There was about 20:1 ratio of votes against anything burke related.


  • Options
    #98
    SeanJ09
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭SeanJ09


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Isaac Burke: 13
    Cian Moran: 210
    Re-open Nominations: 11
    TVP: 234

    There was about 20:1 ratio of votes against anything burke related.

    Any word or statements from the Burke's today?


  • Options
    #99
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,217 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Ha, no.


  • Options
    #100
    Timmyctc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,825 ✭✭✭Timmyctc


    Cant wait till next year's thread

    "NUIG vs THE BURKE FAMILY 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!


  • Options
    #101
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Timmyctc wrote: »
    Cant wait till next year's thread

    "NUIG vs THE BURKE FAMILY 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!

    oh god no. Im already expecting another abortion vote, it would be nice if each year we didnt have the same 2 votes.

    I doubt they could get anything near the 500 signatures anyway. Im expecting them to keep their heads down for awhile, people now know what they think so are less likely to be taken seriously. On the other hand a lack of sense lead us to this situation so nothing would surprise me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ficheall wrote: »
    Thanks. I didn't realise we were still in need of yet more posts bashing the Burkes to help everyone decide that their opinion was daft.

    Seemingly one of the most "contentious" issues is the Burkes' suggestion from one of their posters that gay marriage sets a precedent which may pave the way for paedophilia, right? Ignoring the obviously very important issue of ability to consent, applying the same logic leads to the possibility of the legalisation of polygamy, so I wouldn't say it's unrelated to what is being discussed. Is that not reasonable?
    As I have said numerous times, polygamy is not the issue here and the only one pushing it is you, so no it is not reasonable.


  • Options
    #103
    LoonyLovegood
    Registered Users Posts: 6,068 ✭✭✭LoonyLovegood


    There can't be another abortion vote for three years, the SU council took a vote two weeks ago.


  • Options
    #104
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Paddy Cow wrote: »
    As I have said numerous times, polygamy is not the issue here and the only one pushing it is you, so no it is not reasonable.
    What if the Burkes had raised it as an issue though?
    What if their flyers mentioned marriage status being sought for polygamy and polyandry? Would you deem it acceptable for conversation then?


  • Options
    #105
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    The Burke's scaremongering about it just struck me as hilariously juvenile and quaint, it was claiming that marriage equality is a slippery slope to the acceptance of paedophilia that enraged people.

    Tbh, I thought they were calling gay men pedophiles before I read the flyer.

    But it seems to be more floodgates/slippery slope mentality?

    Meh, Pologma's fine and dandy in my book.


  • Options
    #106
    Member 420
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Member 420


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    oh god no. Im already expecting another abortion vote, it would be nice if each year we didnt have the same 2 votes.

    I doubt they could get anything near the 500 signatures anyway. Im expecting them to keep their heads down for awhile, people now know what they think so are less likely to be taken seriously. On the other hand a lack of sense lead us to this situation so nothing would surprise me.

    Can't be done as SU have a new policy that positions voted on in referenda cant be overturned for at least 3 years :)


  • Options
    #107
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    CTYIgirl wrote: »
    There can't be another abortion vote for three years, the SU council took a vote two weeks ago.
    Member 420 wrote: »
    Can't be done as SU have a new policy that positions voted on in referenda cant be overturned for at least 3 years :)

    I was hoping they would do something like this. Glad to see the SU cant be assed with this crap either.


  • Options
    #108
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ficheall wrote: »
    What if the Burkes had raised it as an issue though?
    What if their flyers mentioned marriage status being sought for polygamy and polyandry? Would you deem it acceptable for conversation then?
    They didn't.

    This thread is not about polygamy or legalising polygamy.

    You wanted to play Devil's Advocate.

    Apart from pushing the polygamy angle, what exactly is your point?

    Like I have said numerous time, if you want to discuss polygamy, then start a thread on it.

    Do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or are you going to continue bleating on about polygamy, which neither the Burkes nor NUI Galway have anything to say about.


  • Options
    #109
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Paddy Cow wrote: »
    They didn't.

    Do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or are you going to continue bleating on about polygamy, which neither the Burkes nor NUI Galway have anything to say about.

    They did.
    I'm curious - where are you gleaning your information about their equating gay marriage to paedophilia from? Because it obviously isn't their flyers.


  • Options
    #110
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ficheall wrote: »
    They did.
    I'm curious - where are you gleaning your information about their equating gay marriage to paedophilia from? Because it obviously isn't their flyers.
    What are you talking about? :confused: My posts to you have had nothing to do with gay people or pediphilia. We have been touching on polygamy and nothing more. Why are you now changing the topic of discussion?


  • Options
    #111
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Paddy Cow wrote: »
    What are you talking about? :confused: My posts to you have had nothing to do with gay people or pediphilia. We have been touching on polygamy and nothing more. Why are you now changing the topic of discussion?
    You're right, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, that was other posters, my mistake.
    As to changing the topic of discussion, I was trying to adhere to your insistence that we discuss only the Burkes' opinion on gay marriage. Since this includes their objection to polygamy, do we have your permission to discuss it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Ficheall wrote: »
    You're right, you haven't mentioned paedophilia, that was other posters, my mistake.
    As to changing the topic of discussion, I was trying to adhere to your insistence that we discuss only the Burkes' opinion on gay marriage. Since this includes their objection to polygamy, do we have your permission to discuss it?
    Nope, wrong again. My first post on this thread was to praise Isaac and hope he becomes more open minded as life becomes less black and white.

    Dress it up as you will but you were the one who went on a rant about polygamy. It started off as some sort of Devil's Advocate but once you had dug a hole, you couldn't stop digging.

    You carried the polygamy debate for a long time and now you have changed your tune. Try to change the topic all you want but the previous posts are there for all to see.


  • Options
    #113
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Paddy Cow wrote: »
    Nope, wrong again. My first post on this thread was to praise Isaac and hope he becomes more open minded as life becomes less black and white.

    Dress it up as you will but you were the one who went on a rant about polygamy. It started off as some sort of Devil's Advocate but once you had dug a hole, you couldn't stop digging.

    You carried the polygamy debate for a long time and now you have changed your tune. Try to change the topic all you want but the previous posts are there for all to see.

    Wrong? :confused: What about my last post was "wrong"? Feel free to quote it.
    I know what your first post on the thread was - and I'd agree - Isaac's a nice, intelligent, talented, hard-working guy, but I do think he and his family are massively wrong on some issues.

    The world and his mother would agree on the gay marriage issue though, so I didn't feel the need to reiterate that. I've not changed my tune - I still think there's an interesting discussion to be had on the boundaries of "marriage". However, you seemed to take umbrage and berated me for discussing polygamy, asserting that the Burkes had said nothing on the subject and that it was therefore irrelevant. Now, if you look at this: http://www.rabble.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-11-PIA.jpg you will see that they do, in fact, mention that gay marriage could lead to polygamy, so perhaps you could just chill and let people discuss it if they so wish?


  • Options
    #114
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    If you want to start a discussion on the ins and outs of polygamy or the boundaries of marriage, do it in the Humanities forum. This isn't the place for it.


  • Options
    #115
    Ficheall
    Registered Users Posts: 9,033 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Lockstep wrote: »
    If you want to start a discussion on the ins and outs of polygamy or the boundaries of marriage, do it in the Humanities forum. This isn't the place for it.
    So, just to clarify, it's not the place for discussing the Burkes' views on gay marriage?


  • Options
    #116
    MyNameIsMethos
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭MyNameIsMethos


    Presently I'm trying to choose where I'll call college next year. I think this has swayed it. I've met the enemy&its name is Burke. It's been too long since I've tried to rationally debate a brick wall ^_^


  • Options
    #117
    WallyGUFC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭WallyGUFC


    Ficheall wrote: »
    So, just to clarify, it's not the place for discussing the Burkes' views on gay marriage?
    What does gay marriage have to do with polygamy?


  • Options
    #118
    Squeeonline
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Squeeonline


    WallyGUFC wrote: »
    What does gay marriage have to do with polygamy?

    The Burkes main worry is the slippery slope logical fallacy. If you legalise gay marriage, it's only one step away from wife-swapping sodomites, man-boy love, and bestiality.


  • Options
    #119
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Ficheall wrote: »
    So, just to clarify, it's not the place for discussing the Burkes' views on gay marriage?

    Feel free to discuss their views on gay marriage (given that's what kicked off the uproar) but if you want to get into a discussion on polygamy or What If The Burkes Said X, this isn't the place for it.


  • Options
    #120
    Hunchback
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭Hunchback


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Feel free to discuss their views on gay marriage (given that's what kicked off the uproar) but if you want to get into a discussion on polygamy or What If The Burkes Said X, this isn't the place for it.

    But Ficheall's point is both relevant and salient because their views on gay marriage are informed by the effect they believe allowing gay marriage will have. That is to say their views on gay marriage incorporate those issues Ficheall has referenced, ergo it is illogical for those issues to be deemed outside the permissable ambit of this discussion.

    If I have misunderstood anything, apologies


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    MyNameIsMethos
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭MyNameIsMethos


    Seeing as the Burkes' main contention is to do with the perceived floodgates that would be opened by gay marriage towards all kinds of new marriage laws, I'd say this is the perfect place to discuss the potential fallout. A person can't debate against another's argument until they can debate fully against where the other believes the situation will go.


Advertisement