Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row

Sunglasses Ron

20Cent wrote: »

If that was all they did it would be fine but they also try to impose their beliefs on others which is not good. When they do that their stepping over the line.

How? I have never had a Christian try to impose anything on me as an adult. I've never even had a Jehovah Witness call at my door. It's not as if they employ chugger like tactics.

Corkfeen

Jank, I have no issue with saying that I don't approve of students tearing up posters or acting in any way violently toward the Burkes. However the vast majority of the protest against the Burkes was perfectly peaceful.

In regards to the posters, what was written on their posters would tend to be against the vast majority of university's rules. It targets a pretty vulnerable group of people that have a high rate of suicide because of such bull**** being spread etc.

20Cent

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

How? I have never had a Christian try to impose anything on me as an adult. I've never even had a Jehovah Witness call at my door. It's not as if they employ chugger like tactics.

They are trying to impose their values on same sex marriage on the whole country at the moment. The Catholic Church has been a huge influence in Irish law if it effected you personally or not.

Sunglasses Ron

20Cent wrote: »

They are trying to impose their values on same sex marriage on the whole country at the moment.

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

20Cent

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

Sunglasses Ron

20Cent wrote: »

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

That is a very simplistic way of turning it alright.

Corkfeen

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

And the difference between them and the pro side is....?

EVERYONE who wants to bring about political or societal change, or to maintain the status quo, attempts to press and impose their views. Currently I would say the pro side are having a much easier time of imposing said views than the anti side. You couldn't read the news for a month without seeing Panti this and Panti that everywhere like he was on some sort of Nelson Mandela level of martyr.

The reason Panti got news coverage for a month was because a Think Tank threatened to sue him and RTE. The Christian group generated the initial news story.

jank

20Cent wrote: »

If that was all they did it would be fine but they also try to impose their beliefs on others which is not good. When they do that their stepping over the line.

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

minidazzler

asteroth wrote: »

Fcuk your freedom of speech. That's always the curtain that hateful dickheads hide behind. They have every right to spout their crap but should face the same sanctions as anyone who says something offensive. My two beautiful nieces are mixed race and anyone who screams about a white woman loving a black man being an abomination gets an iron bar across the head from me. Anyone likening homosexuality to paedophilia is lining up for the same brute force and ignorance treatment.

This post is bullsh1t from the get go..... Freedom of speech is the main freedom. Without freedom of speech there could be no protests like the million man march, there could be no progress. It is more important than any other one freedom.

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum. But they are allowed to say it.... I'll just argue back....

kneemos

jank wrote: »

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

It's not an opinion it's bigotry and an incitement to hatred...illegal.

Daith

jank wrote: »

Having an opnion is not imposing anything and that arguement is just another method to shut people up you dont agree with.

Having an opinion and asking people to vote on something based on your factually incorrect opinion is a different thing.

I don't agree with ripping posters down and prefer to point out how utterly wrong what that family claims though.

Sunglasses Ron

minidazzler wrote: »

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum.

Scum?

Are your grandparents scum, and idiots, per chance? As I think it would be fairly rare to find anyone of their age who would be on the Yes side.

Personally, apart from the adoption angle I would support gay marriage (I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster), but knowing how much a No vote victory would annoy people who spout opinions like the above would seriously tempt me to vote No. Purely to punish the overbearing attitude these people have.

JohnFalstaff

minidazzler wrote: »

This post is bullsh1t from the get go..... Freedom of speech is the main freedom. Without freedom of speech there could be no protests like the million man march, there could be no progress. It is more important than any other one freedom.

That doesn't stop me thinking that people who say Gay Marriage is wrong are absolute idiots and scum. But they are allowed to say it.... I'll just argue back....

Good post.

" I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

Daith

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Personally, apart from the adoption angle I would support gay marriage (I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster), .

Gay people can already adopt. What disasters have you seen so far?

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jank, I have no issue with saying that I don't approve of students tearing up posters or acting in any way violently toward the Burkes. However the vast majority of the protest against the Burkes was perfectly peaceful.

In regards to the posters, what was written on their posters would tend to be against the vast majority of university's rules. It targets a pretty vulnerable group of people that have a high rate of suicide because of such bull**** being spread etc.

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. However there was an indirect comparision claiming that if Gay Marriage is allowed then all other kinds of Marriage will follow suit, the slippary slope arguement. i.e Polygomy, Men marrying boys etc..

One should be easily enough be able to counter those arguments reasonably enough without resorting to 'your poster will make people commit suicide!!' type of argument, therefore we should ban it.

Sunglasses Ron

Daith wrote: »

Gay people can already adopt. What disasters have you seen so far?

I think it is a terrible idea for several reasons. I wouldn't waste my time even attempting to put it across somewhere as biased as here.

Apart from that though gay people can marry each other til the cows come home as far as I am concerned, although a part of me does sort of hope for a No result, if only to annoy those in this country who are opposed to democracy and debate.

Daith

jank wrote: »

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. However there was an indirect comparision claiming that if Gay Marriage is allowed then all other kinds of Marriage will follow suit, the slippary slope arguement. i.e Polygomy, Men marrying boys etc..

One should be easily enough be able to counter those arguments reasonably enough without resorting to 'your poster will make people commit suicide!!' type of argument, therefore we should ban it.

But if we make an indirect reference to suicide would that be ok?

jank

20Cent wrote: »

One side wants to remove an imposition and allow people do something, the other wants to ban others from doing something they want to do. Simples.com

...and on the same breath good 'liberal' people like yourself would like to therefore ban people from airing their opinion about being anti gay marriage....

You couldnt make this up tbh.

Daith

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I think it is a terrible idea for several reasons. I wouldn't waste my time even attempting to put it across somewhere as biased as here.

Gay people can already adopt in Ireland. You voting no to same sex marriage won't stop gay people adopting.

Sunglasses Ron

jank wrote: »

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. .

That is what I asked for, an actual explanation of what "facts" these people were presenting.

Of course instead all we saw was liberal mouth frothing upoj the sight of two words somewhere nearby together.

jank

kneemos wrote: »

It's not an opinion it's bigotry and an incitement to hatred...illegal.

I have been through this already with someone else.

"I want to kill all the Jews cause of X,Y,Z" is incitment to hatred
"I am against Gay Marraige cause of my religion" is NOT incitment to hatred.


Seriously, some people need to go back to school and learn some basic Civics.

kneemos

I doubt the students could have cared less and would probably have supported the Burkes right to protest but for the inference that gays are pedophiles.
Kinda makes you proud in fairness.

Daith

kneemos wrote: »

I doubt the students could have cared less and would probably have supported the Burkes right to protest but for the inference that gays are pedophiles.
Kinda makes you proud in fairness.

Indeed whether it's direct or indirect it's the same "slippery slope" argument that's not really an argument.

jank

Daith wrote: »

Having an opinion and asking people to vote on something based on your factually incorrect opinion is a different thing.

Well that is what makes a fact different from an opinion. If opinions were illegal then nobody would be able to say squat.

kneemos

jank wrote: »

I have been through this already with someone else.

"I want to kill all the Jews cause of X,Y,Z" is incitment to hatred
"I am against Gay Marraige cause of my religion" is NOT incitment to hatred.


Seriously, some people need to go back to school and learn some basic Civics.

Don't know what your on about now
The incitement to hatred comes from the reference to gays and pedophiles.

Daith

jank wrote: »

Well that is what makes a fact different from an opinion. If opinions were illegal then nobody would be able to say squat.

That's where my argument is. The family were claiming their stuff to be facts and asking people to vote no. I'm disputing their facts.

The fact that they need to bring up the "men marrying boys" crap doesn't help their case at all.

You aren't allowed to say what you want in Ireland though. Otherwise defamation laws wouldn't exist.

Squeeonline

jank wrote: »

I have been through this already with someone else.

"I want to kill all the Jews cause of X,Y,Z" is incitment to hatred
"I am against Gay Marraige cause of my religion" is NOT incitment to hatred.

however, "I'm against gay marriage because being gay leads to paedophilia/bestiality. " is almost certainly incitement to hatred.

jank

Daith wrote: »

But if we make an indirect reference to suicide would that be ok?

And where is this indirect reference to sucide?

Daith

jank wrote: »

And where is this indirect reference to sucide?

I asked you would it have been ok? As you seem to be ok with the Burkes making an indirect link between homosexuality and pedophilia?

jank

Squeeonline wrote: »

however, "I'm against gay marriage because being gay leads to paedophilia/bestiality. " is almost certainly incitement to hatred.

Well you are wrong there and again the poster did not say being gay leads to paedophilia, so you are wrong twice.

jank

Daith wrote: »

That's where my argument is. The family were claiming their stuff to be facts and asking people to vote no. I'm disputing their facts.

The fact that they need to bring up the "men marrying boys" crap doesn't help their case at all.

You aren't allowed to say what you want in Ireland though. Otherwise defamation laws wouldn't exist.

Indeed I dispute their facts as well but I am not looking to ban them because their facts are indeed mere opinion based on religious text.

Dispute the facts away by all means. That is what a mature society would do.

Yes, defmation laws exist but dont apply in this case as they are not defaming an induvidual or a person. I dont think you can defame an entire group either. (some legal eagle can clarify this maybe)

nozzferrahhtoo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Comparing consensual sex between two adults to a desire to have sex with young children? I really hope whoever set up that stall got a severe hiding.

To me it simply says that these anti gay homophobes are so absolutely desperate for an anti gay argument.... but can not find a single one anywhere ever.... that they simply have to manufacture false ones.

Their desperation and need.... but ultimate failure.... to find a single cogent or coherent argument against same sex marriage says all we need to know on the whole debate. Anti same sex marriage arguments simply do not appear to actually exist.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

(I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster)

How so? Except for the obvious fact that doing _anything_ is technically a _potential_ disaster. Even getting out of bed in the morning is a _potential_ disaster. The potential for disaster always exists.

But in this case specifically what makes you fear disaster? I sure can not see anything.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I think it is a terrible idea for several reasons. I wouldn't waste my time even attempting to put it across somewhere as biased as here.

Ah the old "I have a good argument! Honest! I just happen to have a cop out excuse for not presenting it which is specifically designed to make it look like everyone else is the problem and not me!".

Blame your failure to provide an argument on yourself kid. Not on imagined attributes of those you have failed which you have assigned to them in order to explain away your lack of arguments.

jank

kneemos wrote: »

Don't know what your on about now
The incitement to hatred comes from the reference to gays and pedophiles.

Welcome to my ignore list as you are not interested in debating

Daith

jank wrote: »

Yes, defmation laws exist but dont apply in this case as they are not defaming an induvidual or a person. I dont think you can defame an entire group either. (some legal eagle can clarify this maybe)

Well Panti defamed Iona as a group apparently. Despite only naming two members of Iona, six were paid by RTE.

jank

Daith wrote: »

I asked you would it have been ok? As you seem to be ok with the Burkes making an indirect link between homosexuality and pedophilia?

The question you should ask is it illegal as my opinon onwether or not its OK is pointless. And anyway we are going down what ifs now...

jank

Daith wrote: »

Well Panti defamed Iona as a group apparently. Despite only naming two members of Iona, six were paid by RTE.

Names were named in that case. Clearly different to a large group.

Sunglasses Ron

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah the old "I have a good argument! Honest! I just happen to have a cop out excuse for not presenting it which is specifically designed to make it look like everyone else is the problem and not me!".

Blame your failure to provide an argument on yourself kid. Not on imagined attributes of those you have failed which you have assigned to them in order to explain away your lack of arguments.

Rationally debate and put forward opinion on a sensitive issue here?

You must be joking. I can think of three very sound reasons that it is a very bad idea (I guess I could start with saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it"), but seeing as it would be as productive and well received as preaching about womens rights in the middle of Mecca, I'll pass.

Daith

jank wrote: »

Names were named in that case. Clearly different to a large group.

Only two names. Not six.

We don't have complete freedom of speech in Ireland.

Nodin

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Scum?

Are your grandparents scum, and idiots, per chance? As I think it would be fairly rare to find anyone of their age who would be on the Yes side.

Personally, apart from the adoption angle I would support gay marriage (I think allowing gay adoption is a potential disaster), but knowing how much a No vote victory would annoy people who spout opinions like the above would seriously tempt me to vote No. Purely to punish the overbearing attitude these people have.

You do realise that gay couples are going to be allowed adopt entirely apart and separate from any vote on Gay marriage?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/equal-parent-rights-for-gay-couples-256111.html

kneemos

jank wrote: »

Welcome to my ignore list as you are not interested in debating

The ironing.

maguic24

jank wrote: »

The question you should ask is it illegal as my opinon onwether or not its OK is pointless. And anyway we are going down what ifs now...

How is it okay to link homosexuality with paedophilia?

As I have already stated, I'm all for free speech but if there was a group of atheists that had posters saying 'joining the priesthood leads to paedophilia', there would be absolute uproar!!

Sunglasses Ron

Nodin wrote: »

You do realise that gay couples are going to be allowed adopt entirely apart and separate from any vote on Gay marriage?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/equal-parent-rights-for-gay-couples-256111.html

Indeed. The joys of our oh so enlightened and progressive world eh :rolleyes:

Daith

maguic24 wrote: »

How is it okay to link homosexuality with paedophilia?

As I have already stated, I'm all for free speech but if there was a group of atheists that had posters saying 'joining the priesthood leads to paedophilia', there would be absolute uproar!!

If we allowed Priests to marry it may lead to priests marrying young boys.

Daith

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Indeed. The joys of our oh so enlightened and progressive world eh :rolleyes:

Absolutely. Can't wait for gay pride next year. I'm going to steal so many babies from traditional married couples.

S.R.

"NO" TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE!

maguic24

Daith wrote: »

If we allowed Priests to marry it may lead to priests marrying young boys.

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm but just in case it wasn't:

Yes because everyone who is allowed to marry is going to marry young boys.....:rolleyes:

In the words of Eminem: "I think if two people love each other, then what the hell? I think that everyone should have the chance to be equally miserable, if they want".

Daith

maguic24 wrote: »

I sincerely hope that was sarcasm but just in case it wasn't:

Yes because everyone who is allowed to marry is going to marry young boys.....:rolleyes:

Apparently my posting history on this topic here isn't as renowned as I'd like.

Yes it was sarcasm.

Corkfeen

jank wrote: »

I agree with the first point entirely.
Regards the posters themselves it seems to be forgetton by most that there was no direct comparrison between Gays and Padeophiles. However there was an indirect comparision claiming that if Gay Marriage is allowed then all other kinds of Marriage will follow suit, the slippary slope arguement. i.e Polygomy, Men marrying boys etc..

One should be easily enough be able to counter those arguments reasonably enough without resorting to 'your poster will make people commit suicide!!' type of argument, therefore we should ban it.

My point still stands,Universities don't tend to be cool with hateful views being promoted on campus. It isn't particularly nice for the party being referred to in terms of paedophilia on posters across campus. So yep,the mental health of students should be considered.

I'm mad like that, I also don't think homeopaths should have signs on a campus promoting a cure for illnesses,it is dangerous and exploits the vulnerabilities of certain groups and should not be hanging around the grounds of an educational institute. I fully support debates on the subjects to be held,no matter what fallacious arguments they use. However a poster is not a debate.

maguic24

Daith wrote: »

Apparently my posting history on this topic here isn't as renowned as I'd like.

Yes it was sarcasm.

I'm only after seeing your second comment there. :P

Anti fascism Galway

Liberal fascism and the censorship of opinions you don't like seems to be the norm over there. A few days ago we witnessed this embarrassment. What action has the college authorities taken?

[MOD SNIP]