Refreshment Comedy C/D 31St December
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Did they deserve this vitriolic attack?
http://
It is usually ill advised to stand up for what you believe in if it upsets the stamping ground of the left. Have this rather naive couple deserved the level of abuse that has come their way?
It is usually ill advised to stand up for what you believe in if it upsets the stamping ground of the left. Have this rather naive couple deserved the level of abuse that has come their way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i cannot condone the hatred directed at this couple - however -
my view is that if you take a moral stance in this formulaic and attention-seeking manner, you are going to attrack a seriousl level of hostility, which is not at all to say that such vitriol is acceptable.
I would suggest that if you are going to make your moral stance in the public arena like this, you either anticipate and steel yourself for the backlash that you will receive (although again I hasten to add - not the hatred) - or you edit your Facebook account - or better still, don't have one.
The power of internet bullying is only as powerful as the keystrokes that expose it to anyone - don't read it, then it won't make you cry.
my view is that if you take a moral stance in this formulaic and attention-seeking manner, you are going to attrack a seriousl level of hostility, which is not at all to say that such vitriol is acceptable.
I would suggest that if you are going to make your moral stance in the public arena like this, you either anticipate and steel yourself for the backlash that you will receive (although again I hasten to add - not the hatred) - or you edit your Facebook account - or better still, don't have one.
The power of internet bullying is only as powerful as the keystrokes that expose it to anyone - don't read it, then it won't make you cry.
Is the essence of democracy not that we are all entitled to views and the right to express them without this sort of vitriol, hatred and bullying?
"I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and all that.......?
After all, Sinn Fein are the political wing of a group who killed many hundreds in my home country while this couple have, to my knowledge, killed nobody. The BNP espouse racial hatred, extremists Muslim groups advocate Fatwahs, yet a Labour councillor saw fit to circulate this couple's e-mail address. He should, in my opinion, be sacked for this spiteful act as he must have known very well what would happen. This sort of irresponsible act is not fitting of a man holding public office. Peter Tatchell has recently spoken of disagreeing with a lot of his opponents but he had the good grace to say they were entitled to their views. I tend to agree with him, probably for the first time in my life.
That said, if I was them I'd be more concerned with my honeymoon rather than a stupid petition.
"I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and all that.......?
After all, Sinn Fein are the political wing of a group who killed many hundreds in my home country while this couple have, to my knowledge, killed nobody. The BNP espouse racial hatred, extremists Muslim groups advocate Fatwahs, yet a Labour councillor saw fit to circulate this couple's e-mail address. He should, in my opinion, be sacked for this spiteful act as he must have known very well what would happen. This sort of irresponsible act is not fitting of a man holding public office. Peter Tatchell has recently spoken of disagreeing with a lot of his opponents but he had the good grace to say they were entitled to their views. I tend to agree with him, probably for the first time in my life.
That said, if I was them I'd be more concerned with my honeymoon rather than a stupid petition.
MoonRocker
I cannot answer for someone else, but no, I don't think they deserve the vitriol they've received..
However, isn't this all within the realms of free speech? Only recently we've had news stories announcing that verbal insults will no longer be chargeable as a public order offence.
So this couple have the right to demonstrate against marriage equality. Fine.
But even if you disagree with the sentiment...doesn't someone else have the right to express the hope that they both get cancer?
Yep, I am fully aware how horrible that sounds, but free speech is free speech. If we have to put up with Christian preachers telling gays that they are going to hell for their sins, and Catholic primates (not apes) telling us that the paedophile priest scandals were down to gays in the clergy (I kid you not), don't you think that free speech should flow the other way too?
There are people who are very very vocal of their hatred of gays and there aree those who will bully gay teenagers and murder gay men in the middle Of Trafalgar Square.
So when Mr and Mrs Smug wander into Downing Street with a petition which cuts to the heart of what so many feel as the last bastion of equality, it's going to get people's blood boiling.
It's not right, but that's what trolls are like.
In this case (unlike kids who have died of cancer for example), the trolls have picked on someone who has joined and extremely emotive debate.
I'm quite annoyed by this story, because it deflects attention away from the real issue.
I cannot answer for someone else, but no, I don't think they deserve the vitriol they've received..
However, isn't this all within the realms of free speech? Only recently we've had news stories announcing that verbal insults will no longer be chargeable as a public order offence.
So this couple have the right to demonstrate against marriage equality. Fine.
But even if you disagree with the sentiment...doesn't someone else have the right to express the hope that they both get cancer?
Yep, I am fully aware how horrible that sounds, but free speech is free speech. If we have to put up with Christian preachers telling gays that they are going to hell for their sins, and Catholic primates (not apes) telling us that the paedophile priest scandals were down to gays in the clergy (I kid you not), don't you think that free speech should flow the other way too?
There are people who are very very vocal of their hatred of gays and there aree those who will bully gay teenagers and murder gay men in the middle Of Trafalgar Square.
So when Mr and Mrs Smug wander into Downing Street with a petition which cuts to the heart of what so many feel as the last bastion of equality, it's going to get people's blood boiling.
It's not right, but that's what trolls are like.
In this case (unlike kids who have died of cancer for example), the trolls have picked on someone who has joined and extremely emotive debate.
I'm quite annoyed by this story, because it deflects attention away from the real issue.
Would just like to say well done SP. YOu have really brought up some great points. The fact they stand there all sacharrine and then seem shocked at even th thought of a backlash just makes it seem like they deserve to have their views shown up for what they are! I don't agree with some of the personal attacks but they have chosen to be a public face for it so they have to face what comes with that.
brenden. dont be silly. i am not angry or hatefilled at all!
show me where in my post i have said anything hatefilled?
moonrocker - i did not say they deserve everything they get at all!
i actually said that i agree that the nasty comment are too much - but that they surely cant be all that surprised to get the reaction theyve got - did they think no-one would mind what theyve done? And playing innocent about it doesnt wash.
its not 'just a petition' - to get those signatures they must have campaigned and spouted hate filled vitriol to all that would listen.... and like i said if you dish it out you have to be prepared th accept that you might get more of the same hatefilled vitriol back in response.
just because i do not pity them does not mean i support the nastiness they are suffering
LEARN TO READ!
show me where in my post i have said anything hatefilled?
moonrocker - i did not say they deserve everything they get at all!
i actually said that i agree that the nasty comment are too much - but that they surely cant be all that surprised to get the reaction theyve got - did they think no-one would mind what theyve done? And playing innocent about it doesnt wash.
its not 'just a petition' - to get those signatures they must have campaigned and spouted hate filled vitriol to all that would listen.... and like i said if you dish it out you have to be prepared th accept that you might get more of the same hatefilled vitriol back in response.
just because i do not pity them does not mean i support the nastiness they are suffering
LEARN TO READ!
Moonrocker
I've just remembered something that I read recently (about this very couple) which I believe puts this into perspective.
It's the fact that they're a recently married couple that has stuck in many people's throat. There's almost an element of 'rubbing it in'. The analogy I read was this: "It's like someone giving a eulogy at a funeral for a dead child, then halfway though, getting out pictures of happy and healthy[i children and passing them amongst the congregation.
Now, imagine how the family and friends of the deceased child would feel about that, and how they would react.
Hope that makes sense.
Very few people on either side of this issue are debating it. On one side you have those shouting that same sex marriage would lead to Mormon-style multiple wives, marriage between man and animal and the antidisestablisment (been waiting [i]years] to use that word) of the Church of England. And on the other side, you have people screaming "You're all homophobes".
What needs to happen now is what, in practical terms, this change in the law means. Also the government have to provide absolute, water-tight legislation which will protect churches, synogogues and mosque from being forced to hold same-sex unions.
I'm fairly sure that in Sweden they have same sex civil unions - what happened there? If we could find that out, I'm sure a lot of people would feel more comfortable with the whole process.
I've just remembered something that I read recently (about this very couple) which I believe puts this into perspective.
It's the fact that they're a recently married couple that has stuck in many people's throat. There's almost an element of 'rubbing it in'. The analogy I read was this: "It's like someone giving a eulogy at a funeral for a dead child, then halfway though, getting out pictures of happy and healthy[i children and passing them amongst the congregation.
Now, imagine how the family and friends of the deceased child would feel about that, and how they would react.
Hope that makes sense.
Very few people on either side of this issue are debating it. On one side you have those shouting that same sex marriage would lead to Mormon-style multiple wives, marriage between man and animal and the antidisestablisment (been waiting [i]years] to use that word) of the Church of England. And on the other side, you have people screaming "You're all homophobes".
What needs to happen now is what, in practical terms, this change in the law means. Also the government have to provide absolute, water-tight legislation which will protect churches, synogogues and mosque from being forced to hold same-sex unions.
I'm fairly sure that in Sweden they have same sex civil unions - what happened there? If we could find that out, I'm sure a lot of people would feel more comfortable with the whole process.
But let's look at the positive side to this (made ME laugh anyway!):
http://
http://
I've said this before on a different thread...when you're in a civil partnership, you are not married. You are identified as being something 'other'. You don't go on holiday after your ceremony, you go 'on holiday'.
On all official documents (and job applications) you will state that you are in a civil partnership, immediately announcing that you're gay (and thereby open to discrimination).
Also, the term 'civil partner' has the sterile ring of a formal agreement - it has the romance of an extended warranty for your fridge.
Once 'married', civil partners go from being partners to being partners, whereas straight couples can call themselves 'husband and wife'.
If there is no difference between CPs and marriage - then why not let straight couples have the choice of either, as well as gay couples? Or better still ditch CPS all together.
Perhaps we should have a look at the experience of Canada who legalised same-sex civil marriages six years ago. As far as I know, the four horsemen of the apocalypse have yet to be seen galloping over the skies of Ontario...
On all official documents (and job applications) you will state that you are in a civil partnership, immediately announcing that you're gay (and thereby open to discrimination).
Also, the term 'civil partner' has the sterile ring of a formal agreement - it has the romance of an extended warranty for your fridge.
Once 'married', civil partners go from being partners to being partners, whereas straight couples can call themselves 'husband and wife'.
If there is no difference between CPs and marriage - then why not let straight couples have the choice of either, as well as gay couples? Or better still ditch CPS all together.
Perhaps we should have a look at the experience of Canada who legalised same-sex civil marriages six years ago. As far as I know, the four horsemen of the apocalypse have yet to be seen galloping over the skies of Ontario...
Moonrocker
I think it was a definite point they were making by sending a couple of newlyweds and that was just plain nasty.
The deceased child analogy fits because what we're talking about is the celebration of their union through marriage. "Look what we can do - all you can do is that second rate 'civil partnership' thing...something cobbled together ten years ago...whereas our[i marriage is a 'proper' union".
And honest - they [i]did] come across terribly smug.
I think it was a definite point they were making by sending a couple of newlyweds and that was just plain nasty.
The deceased child analogy fits because what we're talking about is the celebration of their union through marriage. "Look what we can do - all you can do is that second rate 'civil partnership' thing...something cobbled together ten years ago...whereas our[i marriage is a 'proper' union".
And honest - they [i]did] come across terribly smug.
you're right SP, there are no apocalyptic horsemen galloping across the prairies; but conversely, neither is the established church in canada quite as entwined with the organ of the state, as it is here in England.
maybe a better target for examination is Norway, where the lutheran church is still governed by statute from the storting and where, though divided, the church authorities permitted individual churchmen to follow their consciences.
maybe a better target for examination is Norway, where the lutheran church is still governed by statute from the storting and where, though divided, the church authorities permitted individual churchmen to follow their consciences.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News10 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.