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

400K Unemployed:Media/Twitter obessed with Panti/SSM?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    Your first post on this page contradicted the sentiments expressed in post 20. It had everything to do with your comment.

    Now - What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

    A simple yes or no followed by an answer would have sufficed. Up to your usual tricks.

    Troll added to ignore list


  • Options
    #33
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Theres money involved. As soon as marriage is destroyed we're done with our duties and obligations of family life, we can focus all of our attention on being consumers.

    To expand on that point theres several articles posted on links that have developed between big business and gay marriage activists which answer your questions as to why theres a disproportionate amount of media focus on the subject.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/


  • Options
    #34
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    What an extraordinary and unlikely coincidence that the four people most outraged on behalf of the unemployed in this thread happen to be the four people most vocally outraged by the prospect of marriage equality.

    How uncanny it is too that they still have so little sympathy for the several thousand unemployed gay people included in that figure; who have neither work nor the spectrum of legal protections for their families that their brothers and sisters can take for granted.

    Eh, arent you giving out about the same thing pretty much as the OP so?


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    To expand on that point theres several articles posted on links that have developed between big business and gay marriage activists which answer your questions as to why theres a disproportionate amount of media focus on the subject.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/


    Without getting into its validity, that article refers to America.


  • Options
    #36
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Says you. Of course it will. It is designed to do so. Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the afterlife if they so wish. Its not a contract.

    None of your statements contradict my original point. This is the direction we are being lead. Your points reinforce the argument. Do you understand that?

    'Says you' is hardly a rebuttal of any kind Phill.

    If 'Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the afterlife if they so wish.' then how will marriage be 'destroyed' as you previously claimed?

    It is the direction Irish society is going Phill - do you have an issue with society moving in the direction the majority of the population wishes it to move in?

    Re: 'Your points reinforce the argument. Do you understand that?' No, I don't 'understand that' as it makes no sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    While i do believe labour are genuinely Pro gay/equal rights its a handy thing to make statements on and push, no major costs, plays well with voters, may attract certain swing voters.
    look at joan burton its a lot safer getting yourself in the news saying your boycoting a parade in a different country than addressing failures in things like jobs bridge, see recent audit about costs


  • Options
    #38
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    While i do believe labour are genuinely Pro gay/equal rights its a handy thing to make statements on and push, no major costs, plays well with voters, may attract certain swing voters.
    look at joan burton its a lot safer getting yourself in the news saying your boycoting a parade in a different country than addressing failures in things like jobs bridge, see recent audit about costs

    The argument over the NY Parade has been going on since the early 90s so is hardly a 'new' issue nor can it be said to be constantly all over the media/twitter.

    Did Joan issue a statement or was Joan answering a question put to her which was then reported? I honestly don't know.
    But I do know this raises it's head every year and I am disgusted when Irish elected representatives give their tacit approval to discrimination by attending - on our tax money. Good for Joan! This year the NY City Parade has been given increased attention because the Mayor of NY refused to attend. Should the Mayor of NY City be criticised and told there are more important things to focus on?

    Is it not worth reporting on a parade which purports to celebrate Irish identity but will not welcome certain Irish people because 'ethos'?

    Also - most Irish media (with the exception of The Journal/Broadsheet) only began to discus Panti Gate after it exploded on social media. It would seem an awful lot of ordinary people did think it is an issue worth commenting on hence the twitter frenzy.

    I also find it ironic that a new thread is opened here (ones already exist in AH and A&A) on a topic which the OP is complaining it getting too much attention...


  • Options
    #39
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    I think this thread is obsolete. :P

    All I heard on the radio over the last couple of days is "Was the GSOC office bugged or not and is the ombudsman considered effective by the minister for justice".

    The only Panti related material I've seen is on Boards.


  • Options
    #40
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The argument over the NY Parade has been going on since the early 90s so is hardly a 'new' issue nor can it be said to be constantly all over the media/twitter.

    This isn't the place for a debate on the Ancient Orders parade and your sort of missing my point that for Labour gay rights is a useful subject, I am not making a point that they shouldn't be pursuing them. But this is the politics forum not AH, A&A,LGBT or even Humanities its worth focusing on actual Party politics which (un)fortunately is the system we operate in.

    But as you said
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The argument over the NY Parade has been going on since the early 90s

    Which actually sort of shows the validity of my point, when Gay rights wasn't receiving as significant media attention as it is at the minute Joan Burton was happy to attend, so
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Good for Joan
    .

    As you say yourself its been going on for years and all the same issues have been associated and widely publicized about it with it for a considerable amount of time so its not like she wouldn't have known about it and if she had to march in a St Patricks parade in NY she could have marched in the other one they do in Queens or somewhere.
    If she hadn't wanted to draw attention to her non attendance she would have given a non news worthy answer she is an experienced politician after all and thats a vital skill.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Also - most Irish media (with the exception of The Journal/Broadsheet) only began to discus Panti Gate after it exploded on social media. It would seem an awful lot of ordinary people did think it is an issue worth commenting on hence the twitter frenzy.

    Hmmm I don't know about that not a huge Twitter user but I do go on a few other irish forums and stuff, and what I saw was, the initial controversy about the comments received a decent bit of attention here but also was reported in the mainstream media, but it was only after that Abbey speech by Panti that it was all over my facebook and so on, and then it seemed to reignite in the more mainstream media.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I also find it ironic that a new thread is opened here (ones already exist in AH and A&A) on a topic which the OP is complaining it getting too much attention...
    Agreed :D


  • Options
    #41
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    'Says you' is hardly a rebuttal of any kind Phill.

    If 'Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the afterlife if they so wish.' then how will marriage be 'destroyed' as you previously claimed?

    It is the direction Irish society is going Phill - do you have an issue with society moving in the direction the majority of the population wishes it to move in?

    Re: 'Your points reinforce the argument. Do you understand that?' No, I don't 'understand that' as it makes no sense.

    Or in other words, you refuse to read anythiing that contradicts a narrow minded view you may have.

    We'll see about majorities at the time of poll. Or is democracy too far beyond your understanding?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    While i do believe labour are genuinely Pro gay/equal rights its a handy thing to make statements on and push, no major costs, plays well with voters, may attract certain swing voters.
    look at joan burton its a lot safer getting yourself in the news saying your boycoting a parade in a different country than addressing failures in things like jobs bridge, see recent audit about costs

    Exactly. If she spend more time doing her job properly and less time carrying on with nonsense we'd all be better off. Just goes to show how much these lefty liberals.care about society.


  • Options
    #43
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Or in other words, you refuse to read anythiing that contradicts a narrow minded view you may have.

    We'll see about majorities at the time of poll. Or is democracy too far beyond your understanding?

    Is it possible for you to discuss this without resorting calling other posters 'narrow minded' or engaging in silly little side swipes like ' is democracy too far beyond your understanding?'? It adds nothing and comes across as petulant.

    I read what you said. You contradicted yourself.

    You have still failed to explain how people can remain married yet marriage is destroyed. Yet - you stated both of this things. Nor have you explained exactly how this destruction will take place or what form it will take.

    Can you demonstrate that there has been an increase in 'destroyed' marriages in any of the countries that have legalised SSM?

    Has there even been a notable increase in the divorce rates of those countries that can be linked to SSM?

    I am perfectly willing to read what you have to say provided you actually engage in a discussion, explain what you mean and provide evidence for your assertions.


  • Options
    #44
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Or in other words, you refuse to read anythiing that contradicts a narrow minded view you may have.

    We'll see about majorities at the time of poll. Or is democracy too far beyond your understanding?


    You claimed

    As soon as marriage is destroyed we're done with our duties and
    obligations of family life, we can focus all of our attention on being
    consumers.

    but then go on to say
    Married people may still be married until the day they die and on into the
    afterlife if they so wish. Its not a contract.


    These statements contradict each other.

    Re your post 22 - What is "actual marriage equality"?





  • Options
    #45
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Is it possible for you to discuss this without resorting calling other posters 'narrow minded' or engaging in silly little side swipes like ' is democracy too far beyond your understanding?'? It adds nothing and comes across as petulant.

    I read what you said. You contradicted yourself.

    You have still failed to explain how people can remain married yet marriage is destroyed. Yet - you stated both of this things. Nor have you explained exactly how this destruction will take place or what form it will take.

    Can you demonstrate that there has been an increase in 'destroyed' marriages in any of the countries that have legalised SSM?

    Has there even been a notable increase in the divorce rates of those countries that can be linked to SSM?

    I am perfectly willing to read what you have to say provided you actually engage in a discussion, explain what you mean and provide evidence for your assertions.


    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm



    You can see divorce rates increasing across America while marriage rates fall simultaneously. Is this news to anyone?


    How on earth did you manage to convince yourself that I contradicted myself. Its mind boggling.

    Did you read the newspaper opinion piece I posted?


  • Options
    #46
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm



    You can see divorce rates increasing across America while marriage rates fall simultaneously. Is this news to anyone?

    It's news to me after reading your link.

    Can you point out in that link how the divorce rate is rising? Seems to be falling to me.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #47
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm



    You can see divorce rates increasing across America while marriage rates fall simultaneously. Is this news to anyone?


    How on earth did you manage to convince yourself that I contradicted myself. Its mind boggling.

    Did you read the newspaper opinion piece I posted?
    Those stats only go up to 2011,a tiny handful of states had same sex marriage in 2011. How exactly did same sex marriage randomly drive people to divorce?:D


  • Options
    #48
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm



    You can see divorce rates increasing across America while marriage rates fall simultaneously. Is this news to anyone?


    How on earth did you manage to convince yourself that I contradicted myself. Its mind boggling.

    Did you read the newspaper opinion piece I posted?


    Firstly : You seem to have misread the divorce figures - they fell from 4 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 3.6 per 1,000 in 2011. So the divorce rate has actually fallen.


    Secondly : As SSM is not available across 'America' - by which I assume you mean the United States - please explain how SSM marriage has an impact on national divorce rates?

    The majority of U.S. states did not have SSM between 2000 and 2011 so how can SSM have impacted in any way on the national divorce rates?


    Thirdly - as the vast majority of US states did not have SSM between 2000 and 2011 -how could it have impacted on heterosexual marriage rates in any way.

    I specifically asked you 'Has there even been a notable increase in the divorce rates of those countries that can be linked to SSM?

    All you have done is demonstrated a fall in divorce rates and a fall in marriage rates in a country where SSM was not and is not widely available.




    No. I did not read the opinion piece. Why would I?I am not trying to have a discussion with it's author nor did I ask you to supply someone else's opinion.

    I asked you to explain marriage can be both destroyed and last until death.

    I also asked you to clarify what you mean by 'destroyed' and how you foresee this destruction to manifest itself.

    What is your opinion.


  • Options
    #49
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm



    You can see divorce rates increasing across America while marriage rates fall simultaneously. Is this news to anyone?


    How on earth did you manage to convince yourself that I contradicted myself. Its mind boggling.

    Did you read the newspaper opinion piece I posted?

    Im going to quote this again. I suspect everyone capable of basic maths and that no explanation is needed.


  • Options
    #50
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    All you have done is demonstrated a fall in divorce rates and a fall in marriage rates in a country where SSM was not and is not widely available.




    No. I did not read the opinion piece. Why would I?I am not trying to have a discussion with it's author nor did I ask you to supply someone else's opinion.

    I asked you to explain marriage can be both destroyed and last until death.

    I also asked you to clarify what you mean by 'destroyed' and how you foresee this destruction to manifest itself.

    What is your opinion.
    You won't read it because it contradicts your narrow minded view. I said that to you not one hour ago. Remember?

    The opinion piece sums up very well alot of the questions you will ask here. You should read it.

    I have a question for you. Why do you wish to destroy marriage. How is it in anyones interests to do so. Do you understand the impact this will have on society?


  • Options
    #51
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You won't read it because it contradicts your narrow minded view. I said that to you not one hour ago. Remember?

    The opinion piece sums up very well alot of the questions you will ask here. You should read it.

    I have a question for you. Why do you wish to destroy marriage. How is it in anyones interests to do so. Do you understand the impact this will have on society?

    Phill - less of the 'narrow minded' ad homs please and more of the explaining your own opinion. I am not in a discussion with the author of the piece you quoted - I am in a discussion with you. So why don't you tell us in your own words how you believe SSM with impact upon heterosexual marriage and what you mean by 'destroy'.

    I, personally, have no desire to do anything to marriage including entering into one so your question is void.

    I, however, do not believe that SSM will impact in any way on heterosexual marriages and I also believe that all citizens should be treated equally under civil law.

    Why do you think some Irish citizens should not be equal?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Phill - less of the 'narrow minded' ad homs please and more of the explaining your own opinion. I am not in a discussion with the author of the piece you quoted - I am in a discussion with you. So why don't you tell us in your own words how you believe SSM with impact upon heterosexual marriage and what you mean by 'destroy'.

    I, personally, have no desire to do anything to marriage including entering into one so your question is void.

    I, however, do not believe that SSM will impact in any way on heterosexual marriages and I also believe that all citizens should be treated equally under civil law.

    Why do you think some Irish citizens should not be equal?

    When have I ever said some citizens should not be equal. Its you who is pushing for an inequality. Not me.

    http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/

    Reading this unbias piece even the author can find corralation in the decline of marriage rates in Spain when SSM was introduced.

    So again. How id destroying marriage to benefit society?


  • Options
    #53
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I have a question for you. Why do you wish to destroy marriage. How is it in anyones interests to do so. Do you understand the impact this will have on society?


    Nobody has proposed 'destroying marriage'.

    Re your post 22 - What is "actual marriage equality"?


  • Options
    #54
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I know everyone is enjoying themselves, but I think it's time for Phil to take a break.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #55
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    When have I ever said some citizens should not be equal. Its you who is pushing for an inequality. Not me.

    http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/

    Reading this unbias piece even the author can find corralation in the decline of marriage rates in Spain when SSM was introduced.

    So again. How id destroying marriage to benefit society?

    And nothing to do with a rise in co-habitation, at all.


  • Options
    #56
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Im going to quote this again. I suspect everyone capable of basic maths and that no explanation is needed.

    The rate is clearly falling, from 4.0 to 3.6! How can you deny that?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #57
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You won't read it because it contradicts your narrow minded view. I said that to you not one hour ago. Remember?

    The opinion piece sums up very well alot of the questions you will ask here. You should read it.

    I have a question for you. Why do you wish to destroy marriage. How is it in anyones interests to do so. Do you understand the impact this will have on society?

    Explain it yourself. How will marriage be destroyed and what impact do you think it will have?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #58
    bobcoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭bobcoffee


    I kind of agree with the OP.
    Its about time we get some tipp-ex and go to the part that says it can only be man and woman, do some creative work.
    Its not worth the discussion because it is so lame and cruel that discussing it just brings power to the idea that gay people are a sin (of sorts)
    Lets pretend that we don't live in a backward country, let them get married and just work on discussion jobs :P


    Edit: As someone who comes from a borken'ish home.. slightly uneducated (spent time taken drugs in fields) and all that.
    I can easily see how gay marriage would undermine that current marriage system at hand.
    Since it has been proven that "gay families" have much higher rates for better lives for their kids.
    Good health and family support would just put the "normal" families to shame.
    Can't have that.


Advertisement