Gay marriage - 'shameful'?

[esme]

Quite correct. I also posted in response to Halibuts post that "a big stick or worse" as a euphemism that maybe we should go back to the days of attacking homosexuals with said stick to conrods "bombshell" statement...it didn't last though.

Maybe if you'd made that clearer it would have lasted

If percentages are unimportant then maybe the % mode should be removed from the poll feature as they're meaningless and anecdotal?

No, we know how many responses there are so a percentage is fair.

 

However we are starting to discuss moderation, board operations and drifting off topic, so these posts may not last either.

[esme]

Like freedom of expression?

What if i say i think all homos a sick and need locking up or that the muslims have the right idea and its the only thing im totaly in agreement then on?

What would you say then?

I would disagree with you.

 

However I urge you to be very careful how you put your opinion, as mistakenly inciting hatred because you put a comma in the wrong place or got your words confused can't be told apart from deliberately inciting hatred.

[Conrod]

I didn't say it was an insult. .

No, I did – your inference that my post was based on unthinking bigotry.

Not liking something doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is guilty of bigotry; we all have different tastes.

 

However while making statements with no supporting arguments may not be intended to cause harm, if they are left unchallenged they could then be used by those who do seek to cause harm.

 

And if they are challenged and then left unjustified, then they can only be assumed to be the result of prejudice and their proliferation is at best inciting hatred.This may be your view, but you are stating it in a public forum and different legal rules apply. .

You’re being most unreasonable here. You’re twisting a simple statement that not everybody is a great fan of homosexuality and trying to imply that it was seeking to cause harm or incite hatred – you should know better as a mod than to deliberately twist somebody’s words round to a meaning you have chosen just to elevate the argument.

Do we have to specify on every post we make whether it's opinion or quoted fact?

Does SF have a list of accepted sources of fact material? Will it, like most academic institutions, shun Wikipedia? What about newspapers - are they excluded, or just the right-of-centre ones?

 

No one says you have to like homosexuality, no one is denying you your opinion, but if you assert it as a fact on a public forum you need to provide some evidence.

Now fine this is your viewpoint, I can accept that as your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.

What law says I have to provide evidence to support a statement on a public forum?

 

However you stated this as if it were a fact and not an opinion and as such it could not be allowed to stand.I'm pretty much equal rights for all, not just homosexuals.

 

But again you state there are "many many people", there may be, but you failed to provide any evidence, is this an opinion ?Again is this your opinion or do you have some evidence of this "universal" disgustThis is true, then it was recognised that this was grossly unfair and the law was changed, if you would like it changed back write to your MP and explain why, I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you. .

I must keep a notebook and record the opinions of everybody I meet in future, lest I fail to keep statistically sound records to respond to pedantry on SF.

 

The point is, it isn't illegal now, and now is when you are making your statements.We must read very different newspapers and watch very different news programs because the news I see has very little about homosexuality unless there has been an attack on a homosexual somewhere. .

You haven’t seen any articles on civil partnerships, homosexual marriages or homosexual clergy then, for example?

 

Further how exactly is it "perverting" the union of marriage ?

 

Redefining it, yes, but perverting is a very emotive word.It was a bombshell because it was stated as a fact and not an opinion and failed to provide any supporting evidence that your assertion was correct. .

What evidence have you provided that it is ‘redefining’ marriage? You seem to have stated this as a fact, rather than an opinion, but you also do not seem to have supported that claim with any evidence.

 

And just because 75% of the people you have met agree with your opinion doesn't put you in the majority and it doesn't make your opinion correct.

Indeed, not, no more than yours can be. It works both ways, you see.

[Frank Sidney]

It doesn't make you a bad person to not promote homosexuality....There's nothing wrong with finding it distasteful....no pun intended..

[Conrod]

. . . . And as we don't know how many people he has met, his assertion that 75% of them are of like mind and that this somehow indicates a popular view is a false correlation, the two things are not necessarily linked, so it's anecdotal and meaningless as far as the topic goes. . . . . .

Rather a lot, though I didn’t claim to have met all of the population of the UK.

But, within the social niches I frequent, my family background, my work experiences in the UK and overseas, I have encountered a clear majority of people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

 

Indeed, many of the world’s nations have far less tolerant views to homosexuality than we have ever had. In some nations it’s still punishable by death and in others would certainly result in shunning or beating by neighbours. I don’t condone that at all, but that’s how it is. (And yes, I claim that as fact, do I need to provide links to support it?)

 

Even in this country, far more recently than homosexuality was legalised generally, it remained illegal in the armed forces. This was not lifted until January 2000 – and the change was not exactly welcomed by all serving military personnel. (Am I allowed to say any of this without 'evidence'?)

[Conrod]

troll.

 

They are human beings just the same as you or I (well, *I*) and deserve the same rights and same treatment.

Human beings are not all the same. We're all remarkably different - it would be a very dull world if we were not.

[DLAnotOK]

I would disagree with you.

 

However I urge you to be very careful how you put your opinion, as mistakenly inciting hatred because you put a comma in the wrong place or got your words confused can't be told apart from deliberately inciting hatred.

 

If your so precious that you see it that way then thats your hard luck.

Its obvous what im getting at so if your offended then your just being offended for offended's sake.

Sad really.

[esme]

No, I did – your inference that my post was based on unthinking bigotry.

Not liking something doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is guilty of bigotry; we all have different tastes.

I agree that not liking something does not imply unthinking bigotry.

 

However not responding to a request for an explanation of an inflammatory statement could be taken that way.

 

Now you have responded, so the implication no longer applies.

You’re being most unreasonable here. You’re twisting a simple statement that not everybody is a great fan of homosexuality and trying to imply that it was seeking to cause harm or incite hatred – you should know better as a mod than to deliberately twist somebody’s words round to a meaning you have chosen just to elevate the argument.

I'm not twisting anyones words, you made a statement that homosexuals should have fewer rights than anyone else, you did not say it was an opinion until you were asked to expand on it

Do we have to specify on every post we make whether it's opinion or quoted fact?

Well as this forum qualifies as a publication and not as a chat between friends or even enemies, yes.

Does SF have a list of accepted sources of fact material?

Not that I'm aware of, this doesn't mean every source will be accepted though

Will it, like most academic institutions, shun Wikipedia?

Do most academic institutions shun wikipedia ?

What about newspapers - are they excluded, or just the right-of-centre ones?

Newspapers with a history of accurate reporting rather than sensationalism would be preferable

What law says I have to provide evidence to support a statement on a public forum?

When that statement seeks to deny a group of people their rights based on prejudice then the laws regarding incitement of hatred apply, I think here we would be looking at the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 clause 74 which amended section 3A of the Public Order Act to include the phrase

In the heading for Part 3A at the end insert “ or grounds of sexual orientation ”.

which makes it an offence to stir up hatred based on sexual orientation

I must keep a notebook and record the opinions of everybody I meet in future, lest I fail to keep statistically sound records to respond to pedantry on SF.

If you wish.

You haven’t seen any articles on civil partnerships, homosexual marriages or homosexual clergy then, for example?

Not recently.

What evidence have you provided that it is ‘redefining’ marriage?

 

You seem to have stated this as a fact, rather than an opinion, but you also do not seem to have supported that claim with any evidence.

It is a change to allow same sex unions, what else should it be called?

Indeed, not, no more than yours can be. It works both ways, you see.

Not as far as I can see from your response it doesn't.

[esme]

If your so precious that you see it that way then thats your hard luck.

Its obvous what im getting at so if your offended then your just being offended for offended's sake.

Sad really.

I'm not offended, I was advising you to be careful.

 

And please don't insult me by calling me "precious", if you have a problem with what I'm posting then please report it.

[Stomp]

Rather a lot, though I didn’t claim to have met all of the population of the UK.

But, within the social niches I frequent, my family background, my work experiences in the UK and overseas, I have encountered a clear majority of people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

 

Indeed not, however 75% of 10 people is a little different to 75% of 1000 people. It would have been sufficient to say "the majority".

 

Indeed, many of the world’s nations have far less tolerant views to homosexuality than we have ever had. In some nations it’s still punishable by death and in others would certainly result in shunning or beating by neighbours. I don’t condone that at all, but that’s how it is. (And yes, I claim that as fact, do I need to provide links to support it?)

 

It would help your case yes.

 

Even in this country, far more recently than homosexuality was legalised generally, it remained illegal in the armed forces. This was not lifted until January 2000 – and the change was not exactly welcomed by all serving military personnel. (Am I allowed to say any of this without 'evidence'?)

 

No. How can you say that "the change was not exactly welcomed by all serving military personnel" without backing that claim up with some basis in fact. Unless you have spoken the the majority of people within the armed forces you cant assert that the change wasn't welcomed.