Zamo Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 If he's expressing an opinion I'm fine with it, I may disagree and express my opinion, but I'm not going to demand proof unless he makes an assertion of something as a fact. 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. With all respect this is ridiculous. You can't simply invalidate personal experience and observations unless they are corroborated by a MORI poll or independently commissioned research. People might not share Conrads opinion (including me) but I find bullying to suppress opinions that are not deemed to be politically correct to be far more offensive and of more concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 With all respect this is ridiculous. You can't simply invalidate personal experience and observations unless they are corroborated by a MORI poll or independently commissioned research. People might not share Conrads opinion (including me) but I find bullying to suppress opinions that are not deemed to be politically correct to be far more offensive and of more concern. If you want to state something is personal experience then I have no problem with it. If you want to state something is a fact or imply something is so widely accepted that it's regarded as a fact, then I would like to see some proof that backs it up. Especially in cases where sections of the population are being denigrated or having their rights suppressed. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's opinion, but when people express damaging opinions as apparently factual statements, e.g. Homosexual 'couples' are not the same as heterosexual couples, and should not expect to be treated the same.Then I would like some kind of clarification or indication that this is indeed a personal opinion and not a statement of fact as it is worded to appear. As I have said before he may not intend any harm by that statement but there may be people who will take those words literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 As I have said before he may not intend any harm by that statement but there may be people who will take those words literally. Really... do you have any evidence to back up that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 You're welcome Out of interest how do you view homosexuals who do not agree to homosexuals marrying ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Really... do you have any evidence to back up that statement? I invite you to look at the words "may not intend harm...", "may be people.." equally he may intend harm and there may not be people, I have no way of knowing, hence the use of the word "may" Out of interest how do you view homosexuals who do not agree to homosexuals marrying ?They are entitled to their opinions as is everyone else and they can express those opinions and personal experiences should they choose to. Personally I would disagree with them, beyond the name I can't see the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage and it doesn't make sense to me to have both, but that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Maybe if you'd made that clearer it would have lastedNo, we know how many responses there are so a percentage is fair. Oh..you thought I meant beat homosexuals with a big stick literally. Maybe now it's been cleared up the post could be reintroduced. Look at my form on the subject and maybe you or others may have come to a particular conclusion that that is laughable. It's not like I've just introduced myself with 3 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 With all respect this is ridiculous. You can't simply invalidate personal experience and observations unless they are corroborated by a MORI poll or independently commissioned research. People might not share Conrads opinion (including me) but I find bullying to suppress opinions that are not deemed to be politically correct to be far more offensive and of more concern. Quite so. ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I invite you to look at the words "may not intend harm...", "may be people.." equally he may intend harm and there may not be people, I have no way of knowing, hence the use of the word "may"They are entitled to their opinions as is everyone else and they can express those opinions and personal experiences should they choose to. Personally I would disagree with them, beyond the name I can't see the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage and it doesn't make sense to me to have both, but that's just my opinion. But it seems that if an hetrosexual has the same view they are at times seen as bigots, homophobic and discriminating. I agree that there should be no difference between a civil partnership and marriage. Equally accepted and respected. At the risk of repeating myself again a union betwwen a man and woman and woman and woman or man and man is different. Purely differnt and that is why there are different types of union. No argument can change the fact that marriage is an established form of union for a man and woman. A man and woman who because of their different sex have the ability to reproduce if they choose to or there are mediacal or age reasons why they are unable to. An homosexual couple do not have the ability to do so. This in no way belittles the homosexual couple but defines that there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 But it seems that if an hetrosexual has the same view they are at times seen as bigots, homophobic and discriminating. I agree that there should be no difference between a civil partnership and marriage. Equally accepted and respected. At the risk of repeating myself again a union betwwen a man and woman and woman and woman or man and man is different. Purely differnt and that is why there are different types of union. No argument can change the fact that marriage is an established form of union for a man and woman. A man and woman who because of their different sex have the ability to reproduce if they choose to or there are mediacal or age reasons why they are unable to. An homosexual couple do not have the ability to do so. This in no way belittles the homosexual couple but defines that there is a difference. Every explanation you've just typed has been torn to bits throughout this thread. You've just repeated what the bigots keep repeating. The argument isn't the difference but the discrimination because of it. Yeesh! even I'm starting to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 This in no way belittles the homosexual couple but defines that there is a difference. So in a way you believe that by denying same sex couples the right to marry the state is celebrating their difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.