Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iona vs Panti

Options
12467…82

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    lazygal wrote: »
    It's a wonder you're bothering to post on boards at all if it's just full of rants.

    Why can't gay people get married?

    You read the thread. And probably all previous threads. If you want to discuss the topic. Open a thread. If you want to discuss this topic then post about this topic and stop trying to drag this thread off topic.


  • Options
    #93
    diddlybit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭diddlybit


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You read the thread. And probably all previous threads. If you want to discuss the topic. Open a thread. If you want to discuss this topic then post about this topic and stop trying to drag this thread off topic.


    Phil, many people have read that thread and many people arestyill confused as to what your position is. Nayhow, this is a new thread on a different forum. Would you like to clarify your position on whay gay people cannot get married for those not familiar with it.

    Bullet points would help


  • Options
    #94
    token56
    Registered Users Posts: 2,601 ✭✭✭token56


    All this use of the name Phil makes me miss Philologos, a small bit.

    Back to the topic at hand. This whole controversy arose because of a leading question by Brendan O'Connor. I think Rory O'Neill did rather well in answering it and subsequent questions without defaming anyone in particular. If RTE are now in bother its because of the question Brendan O'Connor in naming specific people, not because of the answer given to it. If they are going to apologise to Walter et all, then fair is fair and they should also apologise to Mr O'Neill for involving him in this whole debacle and the legal threats he has since received.

    Of course it is very unlikely that RTE are going to hold their hand up in such a way. However if they don't they should be reprimanded in some capacity.


  • Options
    #95
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,267 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    The only possible good thing which can come out of this in terms of RTE is that they might stop allowing the Ionas on panel and discussion tv/radio shows, or at least not as often.


  • Options
    #96
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Penncil Dick wrote: »
    The only possible good thing which can come out of this in terms of RTE is that they might stop allowing the Ionas on panel and discussion tv/radio shows, or at least not as often.

    Don't hold your breath on that one,

    Iona gets people watching and talking about their shows and RTE damn well know it, its like Jerry Springer putting KKK guys on his show years ago


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,768 ✭✭✭Panrich


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And at no point did BBC Newsnight mention Lord McAlpine by name either, it was "Senior Tory MP" or something like that.

    BBC still payed out, RTE payed out. No point blaming the wronged party if national broadcasters are going to be making false allegations and then having to pay the price.

    Can someone post the link to where the allegations were proven to be false? I must have missed that bit. The correct spelling is paid , by the way.


  • Options
    #98
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Iona think gay marriage is a threat to the family unit. I was thinking about that...surely a bigger threat (the only threat) to the family unit is people having kids out of "wedlock". Am i right in saying that gays are actually no threat at all to the family unit?

    (i understand i'm using archaic language here, but it's Iona i'm talking about)


  • Options
    #99
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    extra gravy wrote: »
    He has a name. You addressed John Waters by his proper name so why can't you extend the same courtesy to Rory O'Neill?
    Nothing to do with any courtesty. I would have referred to the host as "the host/Presenter/Interviewer". I had no desire to know the names of these talentless Z-listers, or absolutely no intention of referring to a grown man as "Panti" so seeing it is what this person is best known for "the drag queen" it was, just like people on boards refer to the "OP", nothing disrespectfull about it, I don't understand why it's caused you such offense.


    Though thanks for sharing his name, Rory it is from now on.


  • Options
    #100
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    diddlybit wrote: »
    Phil, many people have read that thread and many people arestyill confused as to what your position is. Nayhow, this is a new thread on a different forum. Would you like to clarify your position on whay gay people cannot get married for those not familiar with it.

    Bullet points would help



    I'm still being censored in AH. When the censorship is lifted I'd be happy enough to continue with the existing thread. This thread is about something else.


  • Options
    #101
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Iona think gay marriage is a threat to the family unit. I was thinking about that...surely a bigger threat (the only threat) to the family unit is people having kids out of "wedlock". Am i right in saying that gays are actually no threat at all to the family unit?

    (i understand i'm using archaic language here, but it's Iona i'm talking about)

    They main view based on the video they produced is they want marriage to be unique to a man and a women (or atleast thats the whitewash argument they will put in a video)

    But thats about as backward as racists wanting marriage to always remain between two white people and two black people and to never allow a mixed race marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Panrich wrote: »
    Can someone post the link to where the allegations were proven to be false? I must have missed that bit. The correct spelling is paid , by the way.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-and-victim-apologise-to-lord-mcalpine-after-admitting-abuse-claims-were-a-case-of-mistaken-identity-8301293.html


  • Options
    #103
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Am i right in saying that gays are actually no threat at all to the family unit?

    Well it's funny because the gays are actually trying to do nothing more than have their own family units legally recognised, so in fact it is Iona who are a threat to family units.

    If we strapped magnets to the things that Iona like to spin, we'd have Ireland's power consumption sorted for years to come! ;)


  • Options
    #104
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Nothing to do with any courtesty. I would have referred to the host as "the host/Presenter/Interviewer". I had no desire to know the names of these talentless Z-listers, or absolutely no intention of referring to a grown man as "Panti" so seeing it is what this person is best known for "the drag queen" it was, just like people on boards refer to the "OP", nothing disrespectfull about it, I don't understand why it's caused you such offense.


    Though thanks for sharing his name, Rory it is from now on.


    In fairness, he makes a living being called by his stage name like. Using "panti" is keeping him and a few other people in a job.


  • Options
    #105
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Links234 wrote: »
    I imagine because BB thinks there's something wrong with being a drag queen, and by pointing out that Rory performs as a drag queen, he can sway debate, but doesn't realize that people just don't share his prejudices. Bit of a useless ad hominem.
    You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.


  • Options
    #106
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Cabaal wrote: »
    They main view based on the video they produced is they want marriage to be unique to a man and a women (or atleast thats the whitewash argument they will put in a video)

    But thats about as backward as racists wanting marriage to always remain between two white people and two black people and to never allow a mixed race marriage.

    I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.


  • Options
    #107
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    [...] talentless Z-listers [...] nothing disrespectfull [...] don't understand why it's caused you such offense [...]
    This debate is all about prejudice against gay men and women.

    It does your cause -- whatever it is -- no good at all when you pull a "Who, me?!" when you're called out on your own prejudicial and juvenile name-calling.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I have said nothing against drag queens.
    Ditto.


  • Options
    #108
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.

    Would allowing gay people to marry benefit society?


  • Options
    #109
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    just to end the "race" issue here...Iona are on record as stating "race rights" come before gay rights.

    this was in relation to gay couples in the UK getting preference over people of different race in adoption situations.


  • Options
    #110
    diddlybit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭diddlybit


    lazygal wrote: »
    Would allowing gay people to marry benefit society?

    Yes. It will benefit me and others as a members of Irish society. My partner and I will no longer be second class citizens in a legal relationship that is lesser than marriage.


  • Options
    #111
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.

    Well, I imagine that saying "I don't care what drag queens have to say" (paraphrasing) is implying that someone doesn't have anything worth hearing by virtue of the fact they are a drag queen. But maybe that's just my imagination. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    just to end the "race" issue here...Iona are on record as stating "race rights" come before gay rights.

    Ok,
    But in their view religious views come above any sort of gay rights,

    In my view human rights come before any religious views, gays are human's they are people and as such they deserve equal rights for just being who they are.


  • Options
    #113
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Phill said earlier he's popped me on ignore for having the cheek to ask him if he has any opposition to gay rights that isn't a variation of "I just don't like it", so would someone else mind asking him for me? Thanks.


  • Options
    #114
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Ok,
    But in their view religious views come above any sort of gay rights,

    In my view human rights come before any religious views, gays are human's they are people and as such they deserve equal rights for just being who they are.
    yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.


  • Options
    #115
    token56
    Registered Users Posts: 2,601 ✭✭✭token56


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.

    Rather asking if gay marriage would be of benefit to society I think the question should be, would gay marriage be of detriment to society and if so why?

    If tomorrow gay marriage was legal how in a weeks time, a years time, 10 years time, how would society as a whole be damaged compared to now when gay marriage is not legal? So far in any debate on this topic the only reasonable answer to arise is that it wouldn't damage society in any way at all. Please anyone tell me how it would.


  • Options
    #116
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm still being censored in AH. When the censorship is lifted I'd be happy enough to continue with the existing thread. This thread is about something else.

    What are your objections to gay marriage Phill?


  • Options
    #117
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,267 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't know who Iona are or who John Waters is for that matter, nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program but I do know you can't make allegations of homophobia on national TV.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Though if it was me personally and a damaging and false accusation was made against me I would be less concerned about the loose lips of a "celebrity" drag queen and more concerned about these allegations being broadcast on national TV.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Nothing to do with any courtesty. I would have referred to the host as "the host/Presenter/Interviewer". I had no desire to know the names of these talentless Z-listers, or absolutely no intention of referring to a grown man as "Panti" so seeing it is what this person is best known for "the drag queen" it was, just like people on boards refer to the "OP", nothing disrespectfull about it, I don't understand why it's caused you such offense.

    With respect, the wording of your posts has an undertone of distain for the person in question. That may not have been your intention and I wouldn't begin to suggest it was, but that's how it came across to a lot of people, myself included, as indicated by this post and the number of thanks it received (implying that people agreed with it)


  • Options
    #118
    diddlybit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭diddlybit


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.


    I think it goes without saying at this stage that all views held by the Institute are deeply ingrained in conservative Catholic doctrine. The public also readily associate them with it. The rhetoric is an attempt to appeal to moderate Catholics who have grown sick of the chruch telling them what to do.

    Instead of:

    *We don't believe in marriage equality because the Church tells us so

    It's:

    * We don't believe in marriage equality because it will destory the family/society/tradition



    Though they would never use the term marraige equality.


  • Options
    #119
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm still being censored in AH.

    Boo-fucking-hoo.


  • Options
    #120
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.

    There is definitely a strategy being followed where any explicit references to Catholicism are avoided at all costs.

    I remember Patricia Casey being interviewed by Matt Cooper some time back, she actually claimed that the Iona Institute was not a Catholic organisation, in fact she tried to say that it wasn't even a religious organisation. Matt Cooper called her out on this but he eventually gave up as she was simply refusing to answer any questions about how all the patrons seemed to be very Catholic indeed.

    The RCC reps at the Abortion Hearings were the same, they hardly mentioned religion or scripture at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    diddlybit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭diddlybit


    swampgas wrote: »
    I remember Patricia Casey being interviewed by Matt Cooper some time back, she actually claimed that the Iona Institute was not a Catholic organisation, in fact she tried to say that it wasn't even a religious organisation. Matt Cooper called her out on this but he eventually gave up as she was simply refusing to answer any questions about how all the patrons seemed to be very Catholic indeed.


    Seriously? They must think people were born yesterday.

    From their website:
    The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society. We defend the continued existence of publicly-funded denominational schools. We also promote freedom of conscience and religion.


Advertisement