Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row

humanji

This thread isn't about that, so give it a rest.

cailinardthair

Ok this is my view of the whole situation from what I have heard and seen. I also was in charge of a club when I was in college so this is my insight from the club point of view.

As a person who has her boyfriend working there since the New year,so I be in and out of the grounds quiet a bit. I noticed a couple of weeks ago a small group of three or four standing outside the gates with the signs about the posters. Mentioned it to the other half why they were protesting but didn't give it much notice.

I think the SU should have stepped in earlier IMO about the posters. If the posters were against the rules for clubs and society's in what they were saying the SU should have taken themselves and sent a letter to christian society stating the reasons why. (they could have done this for all I know though)

There should have been a proper debate by the SU for the referendum with both sides there to give there view instead of it happening in one of the main hubs of the college. I think a debate happened but it could have been cleaner with no stall getting knocked.

I agree with equal rights and gay marriage, and fair play to the people for standing up yesterday and giving there side. But I know a couple of people that don't agree with gay marriage (now they are from an older generation than myself, they agree with civil partnership but not marriage), they given there view without using the bible and without disrespecting mine.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

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

Shock horror that I might suggest you engage in debate and discourse on a forum constructed to facilitate debate and discourse. Where do I get these crazy and revolutionary ideas at all at all?

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I can think of three very sound reasons that it is a very bad idea but seeing as it would be as productive and well received as preaching about womens rights in the middle of Mecca, I'll pass.

Given I was not buying your "I have good arguments but here is a cop out excuse for why I am not giving you one" canard the first time. It is quite comical that you would try the same duck and dodge and second time.

There either is arguments against same sex relationships and/or same sex adoption..... or there is not. Simples.

You are either capable of presenting them, or you are not. Simples again.

From what I see here the conclusion is: Not. But rather than acknowledge that you are choosing to try and blame your failure on your imagining biases on behalf of the forum.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

(I guess I could start with saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it")

You could but it would be an embarrassingly poor place to start.

First of all because change does not required that something be broken. You are merely throwing out an empty and unhelpful cliche phrase in place of discourse.

Second because many would argue it IS BROKEN. The fact that in many places gay couples CAN adopt as a single party and not as a couple, but gay couples can not IS BROKEN and needs to be fixed because this by default creates an environment where we are placing children based on incomplete and maybe even inaccurate or falsified data. Still others would point out that it IS BROKEN given there is no equal rights at play here. And it IS BROKEN given we need more willing adoptive families, not less.

FTA69

jank wrote: »

People have a disdain for the left because they are hypocrites who claim to be enlightened and educated about such matters. They claim 'free speech' to matters close to their heart e.g. John Waters and Panti

Since when was John Waters left wing???

Benny_Cake

FTA69 wrote: »

Since when was John Waters left wing???

The other John Waters perhaps?!

emmabrighton

It's "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve"... :pac: :pac: :pac:

Leaving religion out, can anyone coherently and logically explain to me the reasons why Gay Marriage should not be allowed?!?!?

I don't understand the big hooplah around the issue.

PopePalpatine

Anti fascism Galway wrote: »

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]

Nothing about the Christian fascism of the Burkes, of course. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

emmabrighton wrote: »

I don't understand the big hooplah around the issue.

Given their need to simply manufacture arguments like the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.... I am not even sure the anti side understand the issue themselves. They just know "the gay" exists and they know they do not like it.

More.... it seems.... they do not seem to think is actually required.

jank

Daith wrote: »

Only two names. Not six.

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

I never said we did, however people seem to be making arguments that the posters either incite hatred or defame or anything in-between because some don't like what they say. It is also ironic that people who were outraged at the RTE vs John Waters pay out were screaming blue murder and harping on about freedom of speech yet on the same breath would not hesitate to ban these poster and would actively encourage such censorship.

I posted this earlier in the thread, seems to have been blissfully ignored by most as it is easier to raise pitchforks than take 5 minutes to read a summary article about free speech.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/freedom-speech/free-speech-primer-what-can

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

Since when was John Waters left wing???

Sorry, should have noted it was the John Waters Vs Panti/RTE case

humanji

Just to keep things on track, please stick to the topic at hand. There's been plenty of pro/anti-gay marriage threads and there's going to be plenty more as the referendum looms, so let's not try to mash them all into one thread just yet.

kneemos

emmabrighton wrote: »

It's "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve"... :pac: :pac: :pac:

Leaving religion out, can anyone coherently and logically explain to me the reasons why Gay Marriage should not be allowed?!?!?

I don't understand the big hooplah around the issue.

There was something about changing the definition of marriage.Not sure if it does or if they explained how it makes a difference other than amending the dictionary.

Rough Sleeper

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.

Yourself included, by your own rationale. The Irish definition of incitement to hatred is not limited to statement that could lead to violence:

2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—

(a) to publish or distribute written material,

(b) to use words, behave or display written material—

(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or

(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or

(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.

Now, I don't personally think the reference to paedophilia is direct enough that it would be considered unlawful, though it's a horrible sentiment and I'm certain that the intention is to make the connection between the two.

I'm in two minds as to whether this should be allowed or not. On one had, I do support freedom of speech in the American sense; on the other, this is private property and the university has a duty of care to its students and this sign is a hurtful slur towards a group that's at greater risk of mental health issues and suicide.

In terms of the greater good I'd say leave them at it. This sort of approach won't ring true with anyone who isn't already a homophobe, and it's the sort of thing that would swing the fence-sitters against them.

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

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.

That is a bit of a leap in fairness. Saying that 'Gay marriage could lead to men marrying boys' somehow turns into Gay people should kill themselves. If one was to take the mental health argument seriously then anything could constitute damaging someones mental health. Should we ban fortune tellers and Astrologers? Ban all opinion pieces that say mean things about any group?

Corkfeen wrote: »

However a poster is not a debate.

Yet one is still free to have a poster to air their views. Have you seen Ireland during an Election?

VinLieger

Whats most disgusting about all this is the constant attempts to connect gay marriage and gay men to paedophilia

MadYaker

This is kind of over now. Nothing is happening today around campus. I think the referendum and elections might be on today though. No idea why a students union needs to have an official stance on gay marriage but thats for another thread I suppose.

emmabrighton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given their need to simply manufacture arguments like the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.... I am not even sure the anti side understand the issue themselves. They just know "the gay" exists and they know they do not like it.

More.... it seems.... they do not seem to think is actually required.

So, can logic and coherence not be included in their argument? It is a small sub section of -insert religion here- that are against gay marriage and that small section is made up of right wing fundamentalists. That infuriates me.

I cannot come up with a reason why two people of the same gender should not marry. I can see no reason for not allowing them to marry.

Even the reasons that have been thrown about for them not rasing children are ridiculous, but at least I can come up with them.

1) Gay people raising children will bring up their children gay. Uhhhhhh... but the two gay people had straight parents and they still turned out gay. So that argument cant be used.

2) Gay people cant have children of their own without the inclusion of a surrogate/doner... Uhhhhh... there are plenty examples of people having kids who really shouldnt be allowed near animals, yet alone children... A good gay parent is better than some of the scum that are attempting to raise children...

maybe

3) What about the older gays marrying straight young boys/young girls???There is a minimum age for marriage? 16 right? If a 16 year old is mature enough and enlightened enough to know they have met someone that they want to marry, what does it matter what sex they are...

Sunglasses Ron

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are either capable of presenting them, or you are not. Simples again.

Correct. I am incapable of presenting them on a forum with a bias towards extreme leftist, anti free speech opinions. I've seen the arguments here on it before, the responses are ludicrous cloud cuckoo stuff, so why would I bother? It isn't a debate, it is an opinion followed by a load of "you're wrong because you're wrong, you big wrongy wronger" responses (or pithy one word responses. "Pathetic" followed by 7 likes). In 30 years when this brave social experiment is shown to be a disproportionate disaster, a few of us will be able to say we thought it was a bad idea from the get go, but society at the time didn't allow for such views to be widely broadcast.

Rough Sleeper

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Correct. I am incapable of presenting them on a forum with a bias towards extreme leftist, anti free speech opinions. I've seen the arguments here on it before, the responses are ludicrous cloud cuckoo stuff, so why would I bother? It isn't a debate, it is an opinion followed by a load of "you're wrong because you're wrong, you big wrongy wronger" responses (or pithy one word responses. "Pathetic" followed by 7 likes). In 30 years when this brave social experiment is shown to be a disproportionate disaster, a few of us will be able to say we thought it was a bad idea from the get go, but society at the time didn't allow for such views to be widely broadcast.

I bet you can go invisible when no one's looking as well.

PalLimerick

kneemos wrote: »

The first is an incorrect statement and an incitement to hatred (illegal) and the second is correct.
Maybe Wikipedia didn't explain this.

You may be right about the first statement being illegal, but both would be bigots.

Friend Computer

VinLieger wrote: »

Whats most disgusting about all this is the constant attempts to connect gay marriage and gay men to paedophilia

Nah, what's really disgusting is people having the cheek to speak out against that. Liberal bigotry at its best, right here!

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Correct. I am incapable of presenting them on a forum with a bias towards extreme leftist, anti free speech opinions. I've seen the arguments here on it before, the responses are ludicrous cloud cuckoo stuff, so why would I bother? It isn't a debate, it is an opinion followed by a load of "you're wrong because you're wrong, you big wrongy wronger" responses (or pithy one word responses. "Pathetic" followed by 7 likes). In 30 years when this brave social experiment is shown to be a disproportionate disaster, a few of us will be able to say we thought it was a bad idea from the get go, but society at the time didn't allow for such views to be widely broadcast.

Yep. Just like mixed raced marriage was a disaster too! Man, they really shouldn't have allowed people of different races to marry; it's caused complete social collapse after all. I guess this is just another liberal conspiracy to further ruin society...

Sunglasses Ron

Friend Computer wrote: »

Yep. Just like mixed raced marriage was a disaster too! Man, they really shouldn't have allowed people of different races to marry; it's caused complete social collapse after all. I guess this is just another liberal conspiracy to further ruin society...

I didn't say I opposed gay marriage. I oppose gay adoption, for reasons of such utter common sense it would be insulting to even have to explain. It would seem the best way to win an argument here is to pretend someone said something they didn't.

Friend Computer

Would those "common sense" reasons be "children need a mother and father"? And would the reason you're not presenting them be because you know they're not common sense since it's been disproven?

Would that be it, by any chance?

FouxDaFaFa

By the sounds of things, the students handled themselves pretty well.

It's not "intolerant" to stage a counter-protest to something you disagree with.

Out of about 200/300 (depending on the time of day) students, a handful of students interfered with posters. I don't think that's the best course of action but to paint the entire student body as some braying mob trying to shut down any opinions that are not their own is unfair.

It seems like this standoff consisted of a lot of sitting around.

Saidinmilamber mentioned that they even staged a pseudo-debate on the matter.

Leaders of the counter protest encouraged them to vocalise what their message is, and the crowd obliged. They mainly spoke about how pissed off they were that their posters were removed along with their voices, and that marriage would slip into ruin if gays were to marry. Once they were done, several members of the crowd were allowed to talk, a few apologised for the individual that originally knocked their stand, and explained that these posters and their agenda seeks to remove not only their voices, but their rights as tax payers. The Burkes & Christian Union began shouting down the crowd members, and control of the situation shifted into chaos.

There will always be one or two people on any side who cannot restrain themselves from trying to shut things down because the issue provokes such an emotional response from them.

Sunglasses Ron

Friend Computer wrote: »

Would those "common sense" reasons be "children need a mother and father"? And would the reason you're not presenting them be because you know they're not common sense since it's been disproven?

Disproven by a non biased source who was under no pressure to come up with any particularly leaning answer without a doubt :pac:


I've read the arguments. They are all complete and utter horse shi't. Go on ahead, let some kids with no say in the matter be the guinea pigs for this experiment, f'uck them and what they might actually need and want as long as the adults get their way!

Going Strong

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I didn't say I opposed gay marriage. I oppose gay adoption, for reasons of such utter common sense it would be insulting to even have to explain. It would seem the best way to win an argument here is to pretend someone said something they didn't.

Gay adoption? Not only am I being forced to marry gay people but I must adopt them as well? With such impeccable logic you are truly spoiling us.

Friend Computer

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Disproven by a non biased source who was under no pressure to come up with any particularly leaning answer without a doubt :pac:

Well yes, actually, it has been disproven by non-biased sources. The problem is, I would safely assume, that any source that disproves it is one you're automatically going to say is biased because they disproved it.

Circular logic at its finest.

I've read the arguments. They are all complete and utter horse shi't. Go on ahead, let some kids with no say in the matter be the guinea pigs for this experiment, f'uck them and what they might actually need and want as long as the adults get their way!

Are you aware there's at least one person on this site who has same-sex parents? I doubt they'd appreciate you saying all that about them.

emmabrighton

kneemos wrote: »

There was something about changing the definition of marriage.Not sure if it does or if they explained how it makes a difference other than amending the dictionary.

Fair point! Changing of the definition of marriage.

But, I just looked it up...
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

It is actually just interpreted to mean man and woman but could easily be woman and woman or man and man..

So, does this mean that not allowing gay couples to marry is actually unconstitutional?

I Heart Internet

saidinmilamber wrote: »

.......The counter-protesters then began to sing "All You Need Is Love" over and over and engaged in a sitting protest in front of them.

The absolute horror of this. Cringe

I Heart Internet

emmabrighton wrote: »

Fair point! Changing of the definition of marriage.

But, I just looked it up...
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

It is actually just interpreted to mean man and woman but could easily be woman and woman or man and man..

So, does this mean that not allowing gay couples to marry is actually unconstitutional?

I think the Attorney General and the bulk of expert legal opinion holds that, when the constitution was written, this mention of marriage could only possibly have meant a male-female marriage. The opinion is that, if Government enacted a law allowing for marriage between two people of the same sex, the Supreme Court would be bound to throw it out because the intent of the writters of the Constitution was only to include male-female marriage.

Whatever ones opinion of redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marraige, I hope that everyone would agree, if same-sex couples are to be allowed to marry, they deserve to have full protection under law. This can only be guaranteed by a change to the constitution.

VinLieger

emmabrighton wrote: »

Fair point! Changing of the definition of marriage.

But, I just looked it up...
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

It is actually just interpreted to mean man and woman but could easily be woman and woman or man and man..

So, does this mean that not allowing gay couples to marry is actually unconstitutional?

Exactly the problem here and why a referendum is ridiculous as the constitution has no mention of marriage only being between a man and a woman.

All we have is the supreme courts ridiculous interpretation judgement which should be thrown out with the bath water

I Heart Internet

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly the problem here and why a referendum is ridiculous as the constitution has no mention of marriage only being between a man and a woman.

All we have is the supreme courts ridiculous interpretation judgement which should be thrown out with the bath water

As we were told repeatedly during the recent abortion debate - "you can't pick and choose Supreme Court decisions you like and ignore the ones you don't."

Sarky

I'm sure there will be a rational reason to oppose marriage equality this time.

Also, Enoch is a very unfortunate name.

Daith

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As we were told repeatedly during the recent abortion debate - "you can't pick and choose Supreme Court decisions you like and ignore the ones you don't."

It wasn't a decision. The Supreme court specifically said they could not legislate only interpret.

There is no reason why the government could not legislate for same sex marriage. However if they did then it would it be no doubt subjected to countless legal challenges.

A referendum is the safest option but not the only option as there is no constitutional change required.

emmabrighton

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think the Attorney General and the bulk of expert legal opinion holds that, when the constitution was written, this mention of marriage could only possibly have meant a male-female marriage. The opinion is that, if Government enacted a law allowing for marriage between two people of the same sex, the Supreme Court would be bound to throw it out because the intent of the writters of the Constitution was only to include male-female marriage.

Whatever ones opinion of redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marraige, I hope that everyone would agree, if same-sex couples are to be allowed to marry, they deserve to have full protection under law. This can only be guaranteed by a change to the constitution.

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly the problem here and why a referendum is ridiculous as the constitution has no mention of marriage only being between a man and a woman.

All we have is the supreme courts ridiculous interpretation judgement which should be thrown out with the bath water

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As we were told repeatedly during the recent abortion debate - "you can't pick and choose Supreme Court decisions you like and ignore the ones you don't."

Wow, now that is scary!!!!

No referendum required because the wording is accurate to include all definitions of marriage but law makers have chosen an interpretation of it from the last century.

Holy Jeebus!

I need to get reading the constitution. What else is in the Bunreacht that reading in 2014 would be interpreted completely differently in 1937.

I Heart Internet

Daith wrote: »

It wasn't a decision. The Supreme court specifically said they could not legislate only interpret.

There is no reason why the government could not legislate for same sex marriage. However if they did then it would it be no doubt subjected to countless legal challenges.

Exactly. And same-sex couples would be used as guinea pigs and live in legal limbo for years until it was sorted out.

A referendum is an opportunity to remove any risk of this.

humanji

Folks, don't make me tap the sign! The topic is: "Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row"

I won't tell you again.

Seedy Arling

They should have brought in that shouty gimp to tell them to get 'the fcuk off his campus.'

Problem solved.

MadYaker

There is already a thread for discussing gay marriage/marriage equality. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056711797

Corkfeen

jank wrote: »

That is a bit of a leap in fairness. Saying that 'Gay marriage could lead to men marrying boys' somehow turns into Gay people should kill themselves. If one was to take the mental health argument seriously then anything could constitute damaging someones mental health. Should we ban fortune tellers and Astrologers? Ban all opinion pieces that say mean things about any group?

Yet one is still free to have a poster to air their views. Have you seen Ireland during an Election?

It's just another bit of prejudice that could push a person to the end of their tether and it shouldn't be something that is plastered around campus by a group with an agenda that hits them negatively. Being lumped in with paedophiles tends to do that to a person,particularly if they're not thinking of the fallacies occurring on the poster.

One is free to have a poster but a campus is also allowed to have rules about what sort of sentiments are on display. You're being rather selective Jank. I have no issue with bs'ers existing. However I'll have massive issues with them having free reign over a campus. A campus should not have to pander to a family's homophobic agenda. Why the hell should the family be even present for a 'student's' protest?

J_E

Corkfeen wrote: »

You're being rather selective Jank.

This isn't the first time and certainly not the last time this has happened.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I've read the arguments. They are all complete and utter horse shi't. Go on ahead, let some kids with no say in the matter be the guinea pigs for this experiment, f'uck them and what they might actually need and want as long as the adults get their way!

Reprehensible BS as per usual, Ron.

Same posters every time, with the same nonsense statements and suddenly disappear when asked to back up their prejudices. Getting pretty tiresome now.

humanji

If you've a problem with a user, PM them or report them. Don't post just to attack them.

mikom

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

In 30 years when this brave social experiment is shown to be a disproportionate disaster, a few of us will be able to say we thought it was a bad idea from the get go, but society at the time didn't allow for such views to be widely broadcast.

*posted on Irelands largest message board.

saidinmilamber

To try and bring discussion back towards the topic (and planet Earth), here's the bulk of the open forum between the two opposing groups. Apologies for the bad quality video, it lost all resolution on upload, trying to remedy that atm.

J_E

Fairly cringey activity from both sides, but at least the majority had the decency to let the Burkes say their word. However...

Hard to take these guys seriously when they go do this. It's a bit golden actually, looping 30 sec stock music, rummaging in public bins (without gloves!) to find neatly folded posters on the very top the bin amidst no rubbish at all, not to mention just tossing them on the floor! These thugs are very convenient and tidy it seems...

SeanJ09

Cydoniac wrote: »

Fairly cringey activity from both sides, but at least the majority had the decency to let the Burkes say their word. However...

Hard to take these guys seriously when they go do this. It's a bit golden actually, looping 30 sec stock music, rummaging in public bins (without gloves!) to find neatly folded posters on the very top the bin amidst no rubbish at all, not to mention just tossing them on the floor! These thugs are very convenient and tidy it seems...

Looks legit :rolleyes: So they're against recycling paper now as well?

Lockstep

The Burkes were protesting outside the canteen so students started counter-protesting them with Father Ted placards.

Friend Computer

Don't those people know that free speech is only for those who are against SSM? More liberal bigots trying to shut down debate!

VinLieger

Friend Computer wrote: »

Don't those people know that free speech is only for those who are against SSM? More liberal bigots trying to shut down debate!

Free speech is fair enough but shouting and printing out and out lies about gay people being paedophiles? how is that okay?

Wompa1

VinLieger wrote: »

Free speech is fair enough but shouting and printing out and out lies about gay people being paedophiles? how is that okay?

You should read the thread. They didn't say gay people are or will be paedophiles....that was made up. They had a poster with some bullet points of why they oppose. In one of the points they suggested allowing same sex marriage could lead to other forms or marriage being lobbied for giving the example of NAMBLA in the US lobbying for their rights to shack up with young boys. It was an example, they never directly linked being gay with being a paedophile...or at least not from what I've seen in the videos and posters...