Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Irish equal marriage referendum

Limerick Red said:
That's not how it works pal, you don't get to pronounce what peoples rights are and then tell anyone who disagrees to get over it, would be fuckin great if it was that simple. The majority of people need to be won to the cause, Just labelling people bigots without being willing to engage them or there concerns (regardless of how preposterous they seem to you) does zero to progress "rights".
Click to expand...

How do you engage with people who get their views on marriage, love and family from a religion-themed paedophilia facilitation group run by people who aren't allowed marriage, love or family?
 
cesare said:
You're meant to be politely explaining the possibly unintended consequences of his views, then comforting him if he gets upset. Apparently.
Click to expand...

If he and his pals had a single valid case, if they'd lost a genuine moral argument, then I'd maybe have some sympathy for them at this point.

But they didn't. An injustice has been put right, that's all that has happened here. Anyone who is upset about this situation is just a person who would see injustice reinstated, and as such they can take their indignation and go fuck themselves with it.
 
SpookyFrank said:
If he and his pals had a single valid case, if they'd lost a genuine moral argument, then I'd maybe have some sympathy for them at this point.

But they didn't. An injustice has been put right, that's all that has happened here. Anyone who is upset about this situation is just a person who would see injustice reinstated, and as such they can take their indignation and go fuck themselves with it.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Casually Red said:
What do you want ? A fucking tufty club badge or something ? One mention of the words like a fucking dog whistle for every cliche under the sun .
Click to expand...
I realise you feel under attack here, but that's just because you're expressing a minority view. Here is the view I'm objecting to:

"I'm not against equal marriage, I believe that marriage only pertains to a union between a man and a woman". Your post.

You are entitled to hold that view and to express it. I have no issue with you doing so. You need to realise, though, that others will respond. Here's how. They'll correctly inform you that your view is a bigoted view. Holding it makes you a RAB; a reactionary auld bigot.

I extend that title to anyone who holds that view, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, atheist, whatever. I mentioned my own background in order to assure you that my calling Catholicism bigoted in this respect is not sectarian, but merely accurate, since you appeared to be retreating into a "hard-done-to-persecuted-for-my-religion" paranoia.

You objected also, for some bizarre reason, to my bringing atheism into my argument. I did so in order to explain why I think it is consistent to think there should be equal status for gay marriage and not insist churches carry them out. (Post 408 here). You appear to have neglected to read and comprehend that point, and instead focus on one word and lose its context. That'll be your red mist. Take a few deep breaths.

The term "dog whistle". You don't seem to understand its use in political discourse.
 
SpookyFrank said:
I think the point is you're a bigot who is trying to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well as I'm off to work , in a proper job making actual stuff that exists, beside the same people in the next hour I don't really have time to argue the toss . Except to say they know me a damn sight better than some random Internet punter and aren't of that opinion .
 
danny la rouge said:
I realise you feel under attack here, but that's just because you're expressing a minority view. Here is the view I'm objecting to:

"I'm not against equal marriage, I believe that marriage only pertains to a union between a man and a woman". Your post.

You are entitled to hold that view and to express it. I have no issue with you doing so. You need to realise, though, that others will respond. Here's how. They'll correctly inform you that your view is a bigoted view. Holding it makes you a RAB; a reactionary auld bigot.

I extend that title to anyone who holds that view, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, atheist, whatever. I mentioned my own background in order to assure you that my calling Catholicism bigoted in this respect is not sectarian, but merely accurate, since you appeared to be retreating into a "hard-done-to-persecuted-for-my-religion" paranoia.

You objected also, for some bizarre reason, to my bringing atheism into my argument. I did so in order to explain why I think it is consistent to think there should be equal status for gay marriage and not insist churches carry them out. (Post 408 here). You appear to have neglected to read and comprehend that point, and instead focus on one word and lose its context. That'll be your red mist. Take a few deep breaths.

The term "dog whistle". You don't seem to understand its use in political discourse.
Click to expand...

I objected quite strenuously to your insinuation that I'd be outraged at having an atheist in my house . That it'd be in any way a big deal . When half my fucking family are atheists . And my red mist as you call it is solely to do with encountering a load of half arsed assumptions and stereotypes from all corners ..including the fucking guinesss..on the basis one small part of my rebuttal mentioned the fact I was catholic . The dog whistle remark is perfectly apt a description as regards the very predictable cliches, insults and moronic assumptions that erupted at the very mention of the word . Your just used to using it to describe the very same behaviour in others .
There's also nothing remotely bigoted about not supporting this nonsense . Because that's precisely what it is . Imported American fuckwittery ..like cabbage patch dolls and sex and the city . A load of old bollocks .That if you refuse to culturally buy into your then being nasty to someone .
 
Casually Red said:
I objected quite strenuously to your insinuation that I'd be outraged at having an atheist in my house.
Click to expand...
I did no such thing. Again, either your reading comprehension skills or your red mist has got in the way of you understanding a perfectly simple insult.

I was making fun of you having to introduce a gay man's husband. I imagined you making air quotes when saying the word husband. Because you don't think men can have husbands or women wives, by definition. Making you a RAB. (Way to spoil a joke, by the way).

As a small point of clarification, I had you introducing him to me. As you may know, when you introduce people at parties, it is polite to make a brief comment about each to the other, in the hope that it will start off their conversation, when you move on to refresh your drink and leave them together. At this imaginary party, the only fact you knew about me was that I was an atheist (as it had been in the previous post), and about Adam and Steve that they were a married gay couple. And since you'd invited the three of us, I wasn't imagining that you were outraged at our presence. I was imagination you being sarcastic about the word "husband" in this context. Everyone else but you got it, but because you're looking for insults that weren't there, you missed the one that was intended. I'll repeat it in case you missed it again: you're a RAB.
 
Casually Red said:
There's also nothing remotely bigoted about not supporting this nonsense.
Click to expand...

I remember when marriage was looked upon as a tool of social control and Urban would have taken the stance not of endorsing it for homosexuals, but of abolishing it outright. :D

I do have one question, though - if marriage is about the sanctity of procreation (if I'm remembering your terminology correctly), does that mean we only tolerate marriages between infertile heterosexual couples to 'be nice'? And if being nice in that instance is ok, is it not ok to extend that a bit?
 
SpookyFrank said:
Im sorry if I've dug up anything personal for anyone, but the reason I lash out is that this stuff has personal connotations for my loved ones as well.

Suffice it to say no amount of old folks' coffee mornings will lead me to forgive the catholic church for their atrocious crimes.
Click to expand...
This view is also perfectly understandable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

isvicthere?
australia: indigenous voice referendum.
Replies
22
Views
1K
DownwardDog
DownwardDog
hash tag
Urination equality ( in Amsterdam )
Replies
8
Views
477
story
story
Dom Traynor
Irish fascists and the case of the missing gold
Replies
16
Views
764
flypanam
flypanam
A380
Irish Partition - what if the whole of Ireland had become independent in 1921?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Idris2002
Irish Politics Thread
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
171
Views
9K
likesfish
likesfish
Back
Top Bottom