Log in:  

Register

World Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Yesterday 11:22

there are 2 very simple answers if you are not going to 'blame anyone else for losing their cool'

1. expect those you lost your coll on to apply to YOU their lost cool...And don't moan then if it hurts.
2. If you consider your view on any particular human rights superior and important, you need to bring it to a voting box...the forum is for discussing. getting emotional, insulting, ridiculing will only cause, as i said, the same applied to YOU.

i can't say more than that.
As for Marit, without the medicine, she would have no chance' -OEB
I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine--Bernard Hinault
User avatar python
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,011
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

Yesterday 11:25

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
hrotha wrote:Lal. Yeah right.

Anyway, while I'm glad that Yes won by a wide margin, it's still troubling at some level that an issue of simple equality and human rights can be put to the vote instead of being approved as a matter of fact.


I don't see why it has anything to do with equality. Whether or not a country accepts same sex marriage, everybody has the same rights. There isn't a law that says gays don't have the right to marry, but traditionally the laws simply described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Nobody is being discriminated against. Nobody is being denied any rights that other people do have. The law is the same for everybody.

Marriage has simply been understood to be something between a man and a woman. Even in cultures that have accepted same sex relationships (e.g. ancient Greece, ancient Japan), they still understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. If this is changed, it's not a matter of giving a certain group a right that they have previously been denied (because everybody had the same rights under the old system anyway), but the civil institution of marriage is changed to accommodate the desires of a certain group of people. Whether or not this is a good thing is a different discussion (I think it isn't), but the whole equality and human rights rhetoric is quite misplaced in my opinion. I don't see how the right to marry someone from the same sex is some sort of intrinsic human right in a world where marriage has been understood to be a kind of relationship between a man and a woman for thousands of years by virtually everyone. In a certain sense a same sex marriage is a contradictio in terminis, unless we take the liberty to legally change what a marriage is, which is what western European countries have been doing in the last decade or two.


Your post makes too much sense. Am I allowed to say that or is some forum policeman going to mock me ?
movingtarget
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,613
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re:

Yesterday 11:30

python wrote:gay rights IS a controversial subject. keeping the tone and minding manners is particularly important when discussing it.

of course, unless one considers his/her point superior as opposed to being just different...harsh personal remarks dont lead to anything but flaming in the maters like these...


You have been around this forum for a while so you should be used to this sort of thing. I am thinking of an old song with the line "Ego is not a dirty word," maybe that is true but it sure gets a workout on here.
movingtarget
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,613
Joined: 05 Aug 2009 08:54

Re:

Yesterday 11:42

hrotha wrote:Equal rights for black people was also a controversial subject. I understand minding your manners may be important as a debate strategy to win over those on the other side of the fence, but I'm not going to blame Hitch or anyone else for losing their cool on such a clear-cut issue of basic human rights. And no, I don't think advocating legal discrimination against a whole group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation is "just a different point".


Don't mind him. Python is just pissy because posters who he doesn't like are posting in a thread that he considers his domain.

But I wouldn't say I lost my cool. All I said was - "WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married". Which is a perfectly rational response to a pro discrimination p.o.v.
User avatar The Hitch
Senior Member
 
Posts: 26,238
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

Yesterday 11:46

hrotha wrote:
gooner wrote:I voted No. I'm not anti-gay but [...]

Lal. Yeah right.


Yeah, damn right I'm not. I knew someone was going to play that card.

You obviously haven't read my post one bit and the comprehension of it flew straight over your head by mentioning Article 41 and the family. I believe all children should have the right to a mother and father at birth. That's what Fidelma Healy Eames and a lot of the yes side fought on. She said the exact same thing I said above and politicians on the No side like Mary Lou McDonald and John Lyons who himself is gay had no problem in accepting her congratulations. They didn't baselessly call her a bigot as you did above. But hey you know more about me than my own family and friends.

Jerry Buttimer who's also gay and a member of parliament was one of the leading faces in the campaign. I met him before, nice guy who I voted for in the European elections and our General one. I will do so again next year. My sister has two gay friends coming into our house regularly and my next door neighbour is gay. I have never given them or anyone abuse in my lifetime over the feelings towards same sex.

I find it insulting you come out with a sweeping generalistic comment on over 700,000 people, many who fought it on well intentioned concerns of the family. To suggest John Waters is discriminating is laughable.

And "Lal" isn't an argument.

David Norris tried this carry on yesterday and gladly Vincent Browne wasn't having it.
Last edited by gooner on 24 May 2015 11:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,502
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

Yesterday 11:53

python wrote: WTF is wrong with your manners, dude ?

Good point.

If there is anyone qualified to lecture people on manners, it is you.

viewtopic.php?p=1696010#p1696010
viewtopic.php?p=916937#p916937
viewtopic.php?p=506226#p506226

Thanks for the laugh ;)
User avatar The Hitch
Senior Member
 
Posts: 26,238
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

Yesterday 11:54

The Hitch wrote:
hrotha wrote:Equal rights for black people was also a controversial subject. I understand minding your manners may be important as a debate strategy to win over those on the other side of the fence, but I'm not going to blame Hitch or anyone else for losing their cool on such a clear-cut issue of basic human rights. And no, I don't think advocating legal discrimination against a whole group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation is "just a different point".


Don't mind him. Python is just pissy because posters who he doesn't like are posting in a thread that he considers his domain.

But I wouldn't say I lost my cool. All I said was - "WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married". Which is a perfectly rational response to a pro discrimination p.o.v.
you are again posting nonesense...i pointed to a specific issue - you mocking and ridiculing a poster with a different view INSTEAD of discussing the reason for the difference.

the rest of your assumptions - me owning the tread - are just another figment of the sick imagination.

and all i said and pointed to - is simple: keep the tone when discussing the controversial subjects or expect people to respond likewise.

dude, you are not being lectures - you are being pointed being obnoxious when it is not necessary.
Last edited by python on 24 May 2015 11:57, edited 1 time in total.
As for Marit, without the medicine, she would have no chance' -OEB
I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine--Bernard Hinault
User avatar python
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,011
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

Yesterday 11:56

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:Too bad this one only works inside of Europe though. I'd be happy if my country sided with South Korea, Japan etc.


His post makes sense though (while I'm on your side on this). We should never forget that our standard of living is largely due to generations and generations of hard workers who believed in solidarity and traditional values and it's because of their heritage that our contemporary societies can show off with all kinds of liberal individualistic reforms, etc. I think Kropotkin already referred to this in several of his works (despite being an anarchist). So I'm laughing slowly when Jagartrott is grieving about the world's distribution of wealth, like several months ago. It's hypocrisy.

WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married


To my knowledge Maarten is still a citizen of his country, which means that everything that involves the State and the Vital Record is his business too because the state is the collectivity. It however begs the question what business is it of the collectivity if two persons love each other. It's their private life and I don't want our representatives to interfere into this on my behalf.

After all I don't often discuss that issue because the problem is much more global than this, actually. Gay marriage seems to fit in the "Twitter Generation" in which our little personal life becomes public. No more privacy. We are far from "Rear Window"! Besides the fact that "rights" have the primacy over "duties."

If someone said "I'm against equal rights for black people", you shouldn't be expected to mind your manners all that much.


Yes, say straight that Gooner is a racist. :rolleyes: Personally, I've met a lot of people who advocate for gay marriage but who would be the first to assault gays if they met some. I've seen that with my own eyes, several times. On the other hands, I've seen gays who were strongly opposed to marriage for themselves. Self-hatred? The majority in the community have never demanded anything!! They just don't care and among those who do care, some are pro but many are against. So your accusation is outrageous.
Echoes
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,877
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

Yesterday 12:00

For a long time in a recent past, same sex marriage was a non-issue among gay people. They didn't think about it. I have a gay friend who is against it, by the way. I don't know about Ireland, but in Portugal there aren't many benefits gays are deprived of for not being married. Here I would vote No, too. The country isn't ready yet, moreover if we consider that it has impicated the right to adopt or constitute family with children. I for one won't put the welfare of a child after political correctness and what I consider to be selfish exigencies of a vocal group. A child without parents of both sexes is (in here, at least) very, very likely to be harassed and bullied at school, most will never feel accepted. Being in the scene, I can tell how homosexuals are looked at, and everyone knows how far the youth can be cruel in their undue words. Just a few years back, racism was a reality in Portuguese schools, and I remember being made fun of just because my mother was Angolan. All you need is a kid with low self esteem and disaster comes knocking on your door. I don't think Maaaaaaaarten hates or even dislikes gay people, but based on his beliefs it's only normal he feels how he feels. I hope I made my point understandably enough not to pass as a bigot, please point out any flaws.

By the way, does this now mean that refusing to sell a wedding cake to gay people, in Ireland, should be considered some sort of hate crime?
User avatar BigMac
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,446
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Lisboa

Yesterday 12:15

interesting posts gooner, movingtarget and echoes ! i am undecided on the gay marriage and appreciate the views and arguments as opposed to useless mocking and ridiculing.

one of the issues that i am not clear on is the effect the gay marriage will have on the children they decide to raise...need to read a bit on it. being a father to 2 kids i am wondering how would i raise them if it was a gay marriage ? what would their attitude be like when they become old enough to decide on sexual matters etc ? would they be affected in a wrong way that would undermine the general trend for any species to pro create ?
As for Marit, without the medicine, she would have no chance' -OEB
I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine--Bernard Hinault
User avatar python
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,011
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: World Politics

Yesterday 13:07

Maaaaaaaarten,
You don't see what it has to do with equality? No, not everybody has the same rights. Your argument is akin to saying that, in a society which granted freedom of religion but which defined Christianity as the only religion, there would be freedom of worship. Gays have the right to marry someone they're not attracted to and who they wouldn't want to marry at all in the first place. Meanwhile, you have the right to marry exactly whoever you'd actually want to marry. And the fact that marriage is paired with tangible legal benefits only makes things worse: engage in a heterosexual relationship, or say goodbye to them. That in effect is a sort of discrimination, and as it is based on nothing but sexual orientation, it is a human rights issue.

gooner,
I did read your post. You think gay couples would hurt the children for some reason. *That* is what betrays your underlying homophobia, but congratulations on not beating gays up I guess?

Echoes,
I didn't say he's racist.

python,
Look, if your argument is that gay couples would raise children to be gay, which could bring about the extinction of the human race, don't be surprised that people mock it.
User avatar hrotha
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,082
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

Yesterday 13:20

What homophobia? What's your thing with instantly labeling people based on one or two posts, who indicate nothing of the sort. To you, everyone is either a bronze age bigot or a 20th century white power skinhead. I just don't get it.
User avatar BigMac
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,446
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Lisboa

Yesterday 13:54

Bravo Ireland! A victory for common sense and progress over the forces of faith based reaction. Those who stand against allowing people of whatever gender identification to freely engage in the same social contract previously reserved only for heterosexuals, are vainly attempting to turn the inevitable tide of history.

(I am a hetero father and grandfather.)
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE!
User avatar Amsterhammer
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,704
Joined: 22 Jun 2009 08:29
Location: Amsterdam

Re:

Yesterday 20:33

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:Ehh? I didn't follow this at all, but I always thought Ireland was a conservative Roman Catholic country when it came to this sort of stuff. Too bad for them I guess.....


I think the recent scandals within the Catholic Church has meant that there is less respect for them in Ireland.
del1962
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,043
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 17:20

Re:

Yesterday 21:30

BigMac wrote: if we consider that it has impicated the right to adopt or constitute family with children. I for one won't put the welfare of a child after political correctness and what I consider to be selfish exigencies of a vocal group. A child without parents of both sexes is (in here, at least) very, very likely to be harassed and bullied at school, most will never feel accepted.


Which is worse, having two loving parents (unlike some biological parents, people who go to the trouble of adopting children--and it is a lot of trouble, and generally very expensive--always want them badly) or being an orphan? To the extent that same-sex couples help reduce the number of children with no parents, I'd say they're providing a great benefit to the world.

There are also a large number of children living with only one parent; more than 25% of families in the U.S. are in this situation. Is having two parents of the same sex worse than having only one parent?

True, not all children of same-sex couples are adopted. More and more frequently, such couples are having biological children, with the help of a donor. But are such children worse off than children of heterosexual couples? Many studies suggest no:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/22/175014380/children-of-gay-parents-support-same-sex-marriage

I have to wonder if you're just using the welfare of the children as an excuse. I don't doubt some kids of same-sex couples are discriminated against, but so, once upon a time (and even today, in some places), were children of interracial marriages. The solution to that was/is not to outlaw interracial marriage, but to make it so acceptable that no one cares or even notices.

If kids of same-sex couples are bullied, it's precisely because of the opposition to same-sex marriage that these new laws are trying to overcome. By opposing gay marriage on the grounds of hardship to kids, you, it seems to me, are yourself being bullied into accepting the bigoted views of certain members of society, rather than advocating changing them. It's not unlike opposing gay athletes in sports on the grounds that some of their teammates might not like gays. The proper response to that is not to say, sorry, you can't join the team because you're a problem for some of the players. It's to say that if there is a problem, it's not with you, it's with the players who have these views.

The one legitimate argument I can see here is that children of same-sex couples may miss to some extent having a role model of both sexes. But nuclear families are hardly isolated from such models, which can be provided by relatives, close friends, etc. And families can't necessarily be expected to provide a perfect environment. I grew up with no sisters, and have always felt my understanding of women would have been a little better if this had not been the case. But conversely, my understanding of other men has probably been a little stronger. There can be advantages as well as disadvantages in growing up more exposed to one sex than the other.
User avatar Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,277
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: World Politics

Yesterday 23:01

hrotha wrote:
.....

python,
Look, if your argument is that gay couples would raise children to be gay, which could bring about the extinction of the human race, don't be surprised that people mock it.
there is no need for IF. there is no need to attribute to me any conditions for mocking, since all i posted was my genuine questions ...very easy to verify by paging up.

when i plainly said I am undecided, it means I have not made my mind. simple. as my posting history clearly shows, when i have an opinion, and sometimes it is a strong one, i do not shy to express it. you failing to read question marks, is interesting.

as i said above (but you seem to have failed to read), mocking and ridiculing in stead of discussing points, is only going to have someone offer your the taste of your own medicine.

thus, your failure at reading comprehension is beyond mocking. it was lacking :rolleyes:
As for Marit, without the medicine, she would have no chance' -OEB
I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine--Bernard Hinault
User avatar python
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,011
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bridgeman, gooner and 8 guests

Back to top