Iona vs Panti

Cabaal · 30-01-2014 1:42pm

token56 wrote: »

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.

Its the same "will somebody think of the children" crazy argument put forward when it came to divorce in Ireland.

People claimed it would bring the downfall of society, it didn't.

Sarky · 30-01-2014 1:44pm

I wish divorce had come in sooner, I'd probably have one less aunt to feel awful over because "for better, for worse" means more than "this man beats me and I should leave him".

MrPudding · 30-01-2014 1:46pm

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 has been a general shift, in the anti-gay rights movement, in this direction. If you look at the cases on this in the states, Proposition 8 etc, you will see them trying to use non-religious arguments. They tried religious arguments and failed, then they changed. You will also find academics, both respected and otherwise, trying to come up with non-religious arguments.

When you look at the arguments and studies that Iona are using they are the same as were unsuccessful in the US cases. The Regenerous study, Family trends etc. It is all bullsh1t, but it is all they have. Those arguments and studies were shredded in the courts in the US, but they are still being trotted out.

MrP

Delirium · 30-01-2014 1:51pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCk5w0zkAx0

token56 · 30-01-2014 1:58pm

Couldn't agree more with what has been posted above.

The Iona institute needs to be in the media. They are struggling to stay relevant as society is becoming more progressive, in much the same way the catholic church is. Luckily they have had friends in the right places that has allowed them to maintain a constant media presence. They are very careful about getting involved in any real debates allowing them build up their nonsense arguments. But is also stops anyone calling them out on their bull**** in a public way. It would be fantastic to see a proper public debate between representatives of Iona and someone in support of gay marriage. Unfortunately they wont ever put themselves in such a scenario because they know they will fail miserably.

Bannasidhe · 30-01-2014 2:01pm

SW wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCk5w0zkAx0

Jayzuz - the Chamber is only jointed like...

:pac:

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 2:17pm

John Lyons TD submitted a PQ to the Dail to discuss the payment, but it wasn't selected. He's going to resubmit next week

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 2:20pm

Hang on a minute : I gave a like to FF ?!
:eek::eek::eek:

To be fair though, well done to her for raising it like that.

Bannasidhe · 30-01-2014 2:22pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Hang on a minute : I gave a like to FF ?!
:eek::eek::eek:

To be fair though, well done to her for raising it like that.

She's FF???

Aw feck...I liked it too.

lazygal · 30-01-2014 2:27pm

Senator Power was also an advisor to Mary Hanafin when she was Minister for Education at the time the cease your action or your house may be at risk under weight of legal costs to Louise O'Keeffe letter was sent. I wonder what she thinks of those who dropped other cases on the back of such threats and what she has to say about it now?

I think this is a serious case of bandwagon jumping on the part of the Senator.

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 2:31pm

I'm not going to get party political on it. If she's changing things from the inside, I'd have to say well done!

I'm actually glad to see people like Averil taking very much more progressive stances than I've seen in the past from FF and FG and I have seen her be quite progressive on a range of issues in debates.

At the end of the day, it's those two parties that tend to reflect centrist voting patterns in Ireland. So, if they're changing it is probably showing how much Ireland's changing.

Democracy's about winning votes, and I think if the parties are changing to reflect how people's attitudes are changing, that's just democracy in action.

I'm still *very* annoyed with FF about the whole economic fiasco though!

Irish politics is highly unusual though due to PR-STV voting and a few other unique features.
It's not what I'd describe as your classic 'strong party' setup like in the UK where the Tories and Labour have very distinct party philosophies. In Ireland voting patterns are very focused on individual candidates so you can find quite conservative and quite progressively liberal people within FF and FG, yet somehow they're all still a united party.

Cabaal · 30-01-2014 2:36pm

Not sure what dictionary Iona are using

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/30/late-de-hate/

Now Iona say its:

legal definition of homophobia is that you have a fear and loathing, and suspicion of people who are gay, which is an appalling thing to throw at somebody.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/30/late-de-hate/

I suppose its handy to leave out the discrimination bit,

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 2:39pm

I'm going to establish an Instituion so i can re-define the English language to further my own goals.

In fairness though, Breda O'Brien didn't get away with much as Colm O'Gorman was so on the ball. She got fairly flustered when she got pulled up on putting words in his mouth.

lazygal · 30-01-2014 2:41pm

diddlybit wrote: »

I'm going to establish an Instituion so i can re-define the English language to further my own goals.

In fairness though, Breda O'Brien didn't get away with much as Colm O'Gorman was so on the ball. She got fairly flustered when she got pulled up on putting words in his mouth.

Just like when she was caught out by actual medical professional Peter Boylan.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/21/dr-peter-boylan-and-breda-obrien-the-transcript/

Sarky · 30-01-2014 2:41pm

Did anyone check to see if there even is a legal definition of homophobia?

lazygal · 30-01-2014 2:43pm

Sarky wrote: »

Did anyone check to see if there even is a legal definition of homophobia?

What foolishness! Noted teacher Breda O'Brien has told us what it is. Class dismissed.

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 2:43pm

Don't think there is a legal definition.

I would presume ther is a legal definition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 2:50pm

diddlybit wrote: »

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/index.html - Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 2:52pm

FF Senator Jim Walsh- definately not pro-Panti

Sarky · 30-01-2014 2:56pm

I'm only seeing "threatening, abusive or insulting" there, and Iona certainly tick the box for insulting.

magicbastarder · 30-01-2014 2:58pm

diddlybit wrote: »

Don't think there is a legal definition.

I would presume ther is a legal definition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

phobia generally means fear or hatred of; discriminating against someone does not necessarily imply fear or hatred. i would imagine it would depend on the discrimination involved. we need a less ambiguous term, like 'racist' would be.

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 3:02pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Not sure what dictionary Iona are using

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

I think we can safely say that Rory O'Neill wasn't being hyperbolic in his comments.

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 3:05pm

I'm actually a huge advocate for full freedom of speech.
What I don't like about this situation is that we are supposedly having a very serious debate about what is an issue that impacts upon a significant number of Irish people's human rights and it is being immediately caught up in legal stuff.

I don't believe in silencing the conservative side of the debate either. I would rather just let them try to make their point and argue against it because I am fully confident that the pro-same sex argument stands up where as the anti-same sex argument really doesn't.

I think we can win this one on pure logical argument.

We need to actually have a full and fair debate and the referendum.

I'm genuinely concerned that this is a full 12 months away and it's already gotten to this level of drama.

I think the Government has made a huge mistake by allowing it to fester for this long.

If it's this rough now, I think it's going to get pretty heated as the months go on!

Cabaal · 30-01-2014 3:12pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

I don't believe in silencing the conservative side of the debate either.

I don't either, in fairness there's really no need because they'll make fools of themselves as the months go by anyway.

At the end of the day they want to discriminate against gay people, no if's or buts about it.

This kind of message from them will attract all sorts of nutbags to their side

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 3:24pm

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't either, in fairness there's really no need because they'll make fools of themselves as the months go by anyway.

At the end of the day they want to discriminate against gay people, no if's or buts about it.

This kind of message from them will attract all sorts of nutbags to their side

I think to an extent it's advantageous to let them have their say. Those that are undecided in regards to their position on marriage equality will not want to associated with 'nutters'. And there are many, many nutters, especially on Twitter. So enraged and disgusted by the notion of same-sex marraige that they don't appear to sleep and must take toilet breaks at their desk.

We also have to remember that the conservative side is regularly represented on State television and radio, even though they may claim to be silenced. It was Rory O'Neill's comments that was silenced and apologised for by RTE.

Sarky · 30-01-2014 4:10pm

diddlybit wrote: »

FF Senator Jim Walsh- definately not pro-Panti

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 4:25pm

diddlybit wrote: »

We also have to remember that the conservative side is regularly represented on State television and radio, even though they may claim to be silenced.

It's fairly common that the very powerful conservative groups in most democracies start to convince themselves that there victims of a liberal media conspiracy when their influence begins to weaken.

Same rhetoric in the USA from a lot of groups.

The simple reality is that public opinion has changed.

Ash.J.Williams · 30-01-2014 4:27pm

i'm starting to really hate the term "Liberal" and especially "liberal agenda"

token56 · 30-01-2014 4:27pm

Sarky wrote: »

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

:eek: Actually in a state of shock that someone would complain about something like that. Can't believe I didn't hear about this before.

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 4:28pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i'm starting to really hate the term "Liberal" and especially "liberal agenda"

Yeah, particularly given that economic liberals in the classical sense are like Mrs Thatcher

I find it odd though that liberalism is being used as if it's a term of abuse.
In most social contexts liberalism tends to be a positive thing and what defines modern democratic societies!

Iona vs Panti

Comments