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

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 12:49pm #1

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

I blame Labour and FGs capitulation to them for their social engineering tendencies and stoking up this diversion to cover the governments lack of action on jobs. Hopping on the gay hobby horse makes them look liberal progressive etc but just covers up their inaction.

If I was unemployed I would be fairly unimpressed that politicians are dedicating their time to this so much to most people is a non - issue and obsessing about being hell bent on dismantling marriage. Civil Partnership was more than sufficient. Homophobia is always wrong.

We need to get to get our priorities right. People can't put food on the table and the media/political bubble is obsessed with this?

Crazy stuff!

FTA69 · 07-02-2014 1:13pm

The whole "why are we looking at X when Y is happening..." can be stretched to silly proportions. Why are we even talking about the unemployed in Ireland when workers in Bangladesh are dying? Why are we discussing potholes in the roads when the health system is a disgrace? Why are we discussing Syria when the Central African Republic is worse? Etc etc etc

There are often a multitude of worthy issues out there at any one time, some which will mean more to or effect some people more than others. Personally I think the issue of marriage equality in Ireland for gay people is an issue well worth supporting; it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on unemployment or other things.

spank_inferno · 07-02-2014 1:50pm

There is plenty of media to go round.

Would the OP prefer rolling 24 hour live-register updates?

nesf · 09-02-2014 8:30am

Apart from the logical fallacy there, um, you're really begging the question: what can Government do exactly about jobs? I mean they talk about job creation sure but beyond expanding the public payroll Governments can't directly create them, they can just try and make conditions more friendly for more hires to be made and this is a slow burning process that rewards over the years not in the short term. There are no quick fix solutions to mass unemployment after a financial meltdown short of starting a war with somebody or some other massive public project.

efb · 09-02-2014 8:39am

Gay weddings would create jobs.... #justsaying

johnnyskeleton · 09-02-2014 11:00am

Montjuic wrote: »

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

Ironic that you complain that other people are too focused on pantigate and not on unemployment, and yet your estimate of the number of unemployed people is way off.

Q3/13 has unemployment at 282,900. Your figure of 400k presumably comes from the live register but many of those are part time employed, temporarily out of work, etc.

I blame Labour and FGs capitulation to them for their social engineering tendencies and stoking up this diversion to cover the governments lack of action on jobs. Hopping on the gay hobby horse makes them look liberal progressive etc but just covers up their inaction.

I would say the opposite that it is a story that the authorities were happy to let slide but because of intense Facebook/twitter activity it gained popular media attention and thus forced the government to answer some embarrasing questions.

If I was unemployed I would be fairly unimpressed that politicians are dedicating their time to this so much to most people is a non - issue

So no one is allowed discuss anything of interest to them unless the unemployed are happy? My advice to the unemployed is don't worry about what's in the news too much and focus on getting a job.

and obsessing about being hell bent on dismantling marriage. Civil Partnership was more than sufficient. Homophobia is always wrong.

Now we see your real motivation for this post - it's not that you are indifferent to the gay marriage issue you are against it, and the whole unemployment issue is just an excuse to get it off the air.

We need to get to get our priorities right. People can't put food on the table and the media/political bubble is obsessed with this?

Crazy stuff!

Again, individual responsibility is important. If people can't put food on their table that is first and foremost their own problem to deal with. The national government is already paying out far too much in social welfare (in my view) so if they still can't put food on the table if don't see what the government should do about it. They could contact VDP/capuchin centre etc.

By contrast, whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, it is a national issue because the law expressly prevents such marriages from being recognised, so it can only be fixed with the repeal of that law.

MissCharmin · 09-02-2014 11:48pm

Why should civil partnership be enough? Also wouldnt it be a very life if you could only discuss one topic like unemployment. Just to add you can see the power of social media and how it controls our life seeing the rapid spread of Panti's Noble Call!

timetogo · 09-02-2014 11:53pm

Montjuic wrote: »

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

I'd hope the media can concentrate on more than one item at a time.

Montjuic wrote: »

Crazy stuff!

Indeed.

jank · 10-02-2014 4:47am

FTA69 wrote: »

The whole "why are we looking at X when Y is happening..." can be stretched to silly proportions. Why are we even talking about the unemployed in Ireland when workers in Bangladesh are dying? Why are we discussing potholes in the roads when the health system is a disgrace? Why are we discussing Syria when the Central African Republic is worse? Etc etc etc

There are often a multitude of worthy issues out there at any one time, some which will mean more to or effect some people more than others. Personally I think the issue of marriage equality in Ireland for gay people is an issue well worth supporting; it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on unemployment or other things.

I think the issue is over the allotted time given over to such stories rather than covering the story in the first place. Although FTA has a valid point one must also wonder why therefore the Irish media run with some stories and ignore others. Take the latest revelations about the bugging of the Garda Ombudsman.

A story like this (SSM) is self perpetuating, it requires almost zero overhead and can be pushed/flogged to death for weeks earning the said media outlets money by increasing page views, added subscriptions and so on... not to even mention editorial bias/agendas behind many outlets.
Don’t get me wrong, SSM marriage deserves to be covered but if one was to tally up all the hours the Irish media spent talking about this issue or how many bytes were dedicated to it online I would safely say that it would be THE most written about story of this year so far and be pushing it close last year as well. Given the % of people it actually effects? Less than 0.1% of the population actually.... Yet youth unemployment is close to 30%. Both are important issues but is it 30/60/180 times more important. That is the key question...

FTA69 has a valid point, however the OP is entirely correct to question the amount of time some given over to these popular social issues when other social issues affect a much larger proportion of people and with more devastating consequences. Dont underestimate that class distinction here either. Labour or progressive types are much more interested in the SSM issue rather than actually helping some poor working class kids find a future. D4 ivory tours and all that. If you want to find proof, look at Labour's polling... They know they cant to do anything in the economic sphere, so they think that focusing on these other social issues will help shore up support come election time. They will be in for quite a shock if they continue that thinking come the local elections this year and the GE in 2016. Irony is that it will help FF/SF in the long run

Nodin · 10-02-2014 2:02pm

jank wrote: »

.............................

FTA69 has a valid point, however the OP is entirely correct to question the amount of time some given over to these popular social issues when other social issues affect a much larger proportion of people and with more devastating consequences. Dont underestimate that class distinction here either. Labour or progressive types are much more interested in the SSM issue rather than actually helping some poor working class kids find a future. D4 ivory tours and all that. If you want to find proof, look at Labour's polling... They know they cant to do anything in the economic sphere, so they think that focusing on these other social issues will help shore up support come election time. They will be in for quite a shock if they continue that thinking come the local elections this year and the GE in 2016. Irony is that it will help FF/SF in the long run

You missed Adams address to the Ard Fheis, I take it.

jank · 10-02-2014 2:58pm

SF will for now anyway is the real working class party, Labour is the party of the Champagne socialists.

For Reals · 11-02-2014 4:40pm

It's about money. They, (well most) are not trying to bring you news based on merit, rather eye catchers that will sell the most papers/advertising.
Aside from the odd anomaly its seasonal too. Travellers weddings/hotel owners in the spring, water leaks in the summer, homeless in the winter etc.
Also, the news is coloured by the owners and advertisers. A full hero spread on a Horse Jumping Olympian, sure the horse was drugged, but his God father owned the paper.
Same with political allegiances.

eVeNtInE · 13-02-2014 12:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Montjuic · 13-02-2014 12:23pm

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

Corkfeen · 13-02-2014 3:16pm

Montjuic wrote: »

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

It is going to be particularly big news when an organisation manage to censor and get 85k from the national broadcaster. You get peaks in discussions when events like this occur then it diminishes for a time. However it's always going to be a relatively big discussion point by the media, public and in the Seanad and the Dail in the run up to a referendum. Unlike many referendums,the public have a greater understanding of the topic which you don't get with many other referendums.

You also seem to want to put the same sex marriage issue to the wayside due to a personal issue with the concept rather than being concerned about the amount of debate on employment for example.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 3:30am

Montjuic wrote: »

It is not the focusing on different issues by people & politicians that is the point it is the wholly disproportionate coverage effort and time by said group to a minority issue while the population at large suffer greatly.

If all TDs and media types put such effort or even equal effort into debate on how to resolve the unemployment crisis cuts etc it would make sense.

The amount of time dedicated to it is the point which is tiresome. This ain't Russia.

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.

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 3:40am

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.

Indeed.

There is the 85k paid out by RTÉ for a start.

I wasn't aware that the introduction of Same Sex Marriage results in the immediate dissolution of all Opposite Sex Marriages - do divorce lawyers know this? I can't imagine they will be happy to lose such a lucrative source of income.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 3:49am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

There is the 85k paid out by RTÉ for a start.

I wasn't aware that the introduction of Same Sex Marriage results in the immediate dissolution of all Opposite Sex Marriages - do divorce lawyers know this? I can't imagine they will be happy to lose such a lucrative source of income.

85k was for childish name calling. I'll be stumping up for that with my next licence payment

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 3:55am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

85k was for childish name calling. I'll be stumping up for that with my next licence payment

So will I and I think it was fair comment. What's your point? Do you think only heterosexuals have TV licences?

Care to address my second point?

Despite your hyperbole the introduction of Same Sex Marriage will not impact on Opposite Sex Marriage at all. Married Heterosexual people will still be married unless they divorce.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 4:09am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So will I and I think it was fair comment. What's your point? Do you think only heterosexuals have TV licences?

Care to address my second point?

Despite your hyperbole the introduction of Same Sex Marriage will not impact on Opposite Sex Marriage at all. Married Heterosexual people will still be married unless they divorce.

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?

jill_valentine · 14-02-2014 4:27am

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.

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:10am

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.

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:11am

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.

The only people only concerned with money seem to be the anti- brigade. Your statement above rather contradicts your sentiments expressed below

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

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:12am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

Do please explain there Phill. What is "actual marriage equality"?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:19am

Nodin wrote: »

The only people only concerned with money seem to be the anti- brigade.

Ah of course. Thats correct again only because you say so. No proof needed. Nodin says....

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:21am

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain there Phill. What is "actual marriage equality"?

Wasnt that question directed at a different poster? Or do you speak for everyone?

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:23am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah of course. Thats correct again only because you say so. No proof needed. Nodin says....

I was referring to the €85,000 paid out to the anti-SSM campaigners John Waters and the Iona Institute. If you've evidence this didn't happen, I'd be happy to see it.

What is "actual marriage equality" phill?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:27am

Nodin wrote: »

I was referring to the €85,000 paid out to the anti-SSM campaigners John Waters and the Iona Institute. If you've evidence this didn't happen, I'd be happy to see it.

What is "actual marriage equality" phill?

No. You quoted a different post and responded to a different topic entirely. Do try keep up Nodin. Your early attempt at confusing people isn't working.

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:30am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. You quoted a different post and responded to a different topic entirely. Do try keep up Nodin. Your early attempt at confusing people isn't working.

You asked the following question

Phil Ewinn wrote:

What marriage equality? Are you refering to the upcomming referendum on same
sex marriage or are you proposing actual marriage equality?

What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:37am

Nodin wrote: »

You asked the following question

What do you mean by "actual marriage equality"?

And again. One more time Nodin. Why did you quote a post of mine that had nothing to do with your comment?

Id like an answer. I take if I don't get one that you would no longer lime to converse.

Nodin · 14-02-2014 6:43am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And again. One more time Nodin. Why did you quote a post of mine that had nothing to do with your comment?

Id like an answer. I take if I don't get one that you would no longer lime to converse.

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"?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 6:47am

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

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 7:16am

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/

jank · 14-02-2014 7:41am

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?

Nodin · 14-02-2014 8:29am

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.

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 11:51am

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.

RDM_83 again · 14-02-2014 2:45pm

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

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 3:00pm

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...

timetogo · 14-02-2014 3:54pm

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.

RDM_83 again · 14-02-2014 5:40pm

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

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 10:56pm

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?

Phill Ewinn · 14-02-2014 10:59pm

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.

Bannasidhe · 14-02-2014 11:13pm

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.

Nodin · 15-02-2014 12:01am

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"?

Phill Ewinn · 15-02-2014 12:04am

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?

K-9 · 15-02-2014 12:12am

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.

Corkfeen · 15-02-2014 12:27am

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

Bannasidhe · 15-02-2014 12:27am

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.

Phill Ewinn · 15-02-2014 12:32am

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.

Phill Ewinn · 15-02-2014 12:36am

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?

Bannasidhe · 15-02-2014 12:47am

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?

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

Comments