New "anti-gay" commercial

keano_afc

MagicSean wrote: »

I think the message of this video is clear. A child would be better off with a crack whore mother and drug dealing pimp father than with two gay men who have a stable and loving home.

I must have watched a different video so.

hoodwinked

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Ah now...



It's hard enough being a kid in today's world without being raised in a same sex partnership when you read about teen bullying and so on.

and every case of teen bullying i have heard of lately have had a mother and a father,

does that mean mum's and dad's shouldn't have children because you know its hard enough being a kid in today's world....

MakeEmLaugh

LivelineDipso wrote: »

I hate to be one who delivers reality to you, but 90% of Irish people would agree with this advertisement.

Even if that were true (and you have no proof that it is) same-sex marriage is either a right or it is not a right.

If it is a right, then it doesn't matter how many people oppose it. Just as it doesn't matter how many people oppose marriage between different ethnic groups. If a black man and a white woman want to marry, it is their right to do so.

Frankly, in the future I believe ads like this from the Iona Institute will viewed the same way as protests such as this.

krudler

hoodwinked wrote: »

and every case of teen bullying i have heard of lately have had a mother and a father,

does that mean mum's and dad's shouldn't have children because you know its hard enough being a kid in today's world....

The "ohh the kids will get bullied" argument is nonsense, kids get bullied over ANYTHING. How about people taught their own kids equality and not to be dicks to people instead of stopping grown adults doing what makes them happy?

tayto lover

Herb Powell wrote: »

For fucck sake.

My point was they are saying nothing of substance. It is nothing to do with me oposing their freedom of expression. It is my using MY freedom of expression to point out what they are saying is dangerous, and totally bolloccks.

Gay marriage and gay adoption are 2 separate issues, why are the Iona Institute lumping them both together in one video? To confuse and sway people with their emotive bullshiit. It makes it seem like this will have a huge effect on society, when really gay people getting married makes little or no difference to the VAST majority of people.

Maybe it's just the way you're saying it then

LivelineDipso

There should be a preference criteria:

1 Straight Couples
2 Foster Homes
3 Gay Couples
4 Lesbian Couples
5 Cork people

in that order.

Only messing. Any decent and sensible couple Gay or Straight should be allowed to adopt kids. Once the parents have the means and right intention then no worries.

Hippies!

Where was this ad broadcast? Rte?
No? Right well it's just a video from Youtube so take you're backward Ireland comments elsewhere.:mad:

jill_valentine

LivelineDipso wrote: »

There should be a preference criteria:

1 Straight Couples
2 Foster Homes
3 Gay Couples
4 Lesbian Couples
5 Cork people

in that order.

You understand what lesbians are, right?

LivelineDipso

Ireland is not backwards for christ sake. Take a trip across the Danube sometime and see how inclusive out Eastern friends are.

Herb Powell

tayto lover wrote: »

Maybe it's just the way you're saying it then

Maybe, to be fair I didn't say a lot, so it could be read a few ways.

kodoherty93

Doesn't Irish legalisation define discrimination treating one person less favourable than others.

If you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay person.

timzil

OF course it wasn't on RTE. The liberal bias on that station is shocking. A couple of months a go they had a documentary called Gay Daddy trying to influence public opinion and "normalise" gay adoption in peoples minds. No fear they had anyone on arguing against it.

aloyisious

@LivelineDipso: I didn't see/hear any direct mention of adaption in the video, unless it's implied in the mother and father couple being the proper way to rear children. As for the video, it's cleverly sculpted-propaganda and having the desired effect from what I see here.

Laugh's at LivelineDipso's preference post above

jill_valentine

timzil wrote: »

OF course it wasn't on RTE. The liberal bias on that station is shocking. A couple of months a go they had a documentary called Gay Daddy trying to influence public opinion and "normalise" gay adoption in peoples minds. No fear they had anyone on arguing against it.

I remember the program. I remember you getting yourself banned over your resultant hissy fit too.

Cienciano

tayto lover wrote: »

Don't think there were any lies told in the advert at all.

They are confusing marriage with having children though.

Froyo wrote: »

They are making A point, which they are fully entitled to do.

Getting a bit tired of 'it's OK to express your view as long add it's to a similar belief system as mine'. Usually trotted out by people telling others they should just accept everything.

Now, maybe they should in some instances, but attacking them is not always the way to go about it.

I couldn't care less about marriage of any kind personally.

Why is it ok for the iona institute to have an opinion, but people on here cant have one? When you say Iona are entitled to an opinion, people are free to say what they want about that opinion.

Zebra3

So a mammy and daddy is a better way of raising a child than having him/her being beaten or raped in some Catholic run orphanage.

Maybe it is progression after all.

timzil

@ jill Valentine No you've got the wrong person this is only my 4th post ever on boards. I don't disagree with the documentary, it should be on RTE but so should the other side of the argument because a proper national broadcaster should be unbiased.

unseenfootage

Corkfeen wrote: »

You're doing some goal post moving to be fair. You initially claimed that it was backward to criticise the video, then you asked for why the views were backward. Now you've updated to why does society need to progress. To be blunt, the rights of an individual should not be limited due to religious tradition. If society chose not to progress; slavery, bans on interracial marriage, bans on homosexuality, bans on divorce and contraceptives(latter three are particular to Ireland) would still be common in the first world. So progression tends to be a necessity in society.

The rest of the first world have started to recognise that same sex couples should have the right to marry. Its only a matter of time before Ireland allows it and there doesn't appear to be any reason to stand in it's way. Do you have any actual objections to it or are you gonna keep asking questions?

I asked "Should everything be progressive" because your argument is rooted in the premise that homosexuals should have the right to marry because this is progressiveness and the opposite is backwardness.

But progressiveness does not equate to that which is good and wholesome for society.

Germany recently took steps to protect circumcision after a judge ruled that it should be banned.
The government also took decisive action against bestiality. This after the establishment of erotic zoos started to increase.
In April, a German brother and sister couple, lost their court case to have their incestuous relationship declared legal.

Those who were affected by these actions of the German State could argue that this is not progressive and the German government is backward.

Do you agree with them?

cristoir

That ad is useless in comparison to this:

Shenshen

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Ireland is not backwards for christ sake. Take a trip across the Danube sometime and see how inclusive out Eastern friends are.

Being a little less backwards than Moldova isn't really anything to shout about.

MagicSean

Freedom of speech works both ways. If you exercise your freedom to spout backward views based on intollerance then i will use mine to criticise those views and point out how backward they are.

Darth Frodo

I have no problem with them releasing there message and getting it out there into the internets, but what I disagree with is that they sound as if they are stating facts. What they are saying is completely and utterly false. No scientific study has shown that homosexual households are a disadvantage to childeren.

Also there whole point is a bit fallacious. Just because a child has 2 homosexual parents does not mean that they don't have a father and mother (for obvious biological reasons). But if they are referring to the "home" situation, then we'd have to outlaw being a single parent.

mackg

5uspect wrote: »

I'll see the Iona Institutes bull**** and raise you the glorious Lisa Hannigan.

seamus wrote: »

I say more of this sort of thing.

The more utterly ridiculous and bigoted nonsense the Iona institute produces, the less seriously they'll be taken by the population.

I think the pro side would be better served with an ad that focused on pointing out the holes in the argument made in the video in the op rather than what it does there. There are people on the fence who have never given the issue any thought and that Iona Institute video could well sway them in that direction.

I don't think there is much to be gained by labelling people on the fence as idiots and bigots either. There are people involved who are almost definitely worthy of the tags but they get thrown around a lot in this type of debate and this only serves to polarise the argument.

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Ah now...

There you go with the extremes again.

I have nothing against Gay marraige and adoption. But there are complications and relaities which require mature reflection rather than flying off to extremes.

It's hard enough being a kid in today's world without being raised in a same sex partnership when you read about teen bullying and so on.

I get the impression many Gays want to adopt kids just so they can do it. It's more a statement of their assimilation than the needs of children.

This is not mature.

When it comes to adoption no one is saying to hand out kids to every gay couple that applies. They will obviously have to go through the same rigorous application process as a straight couple.

timzil wrote: »

OF course it wasn't on RTE. The liberal bias on that station is shocking. A couple of months a go they had a documentary called Gay Daddy trying to influence public opinion and "normalise" gay adoption in peoples minds. No fear they had anyone on arguing against it.

Considering the fact that RTE broadcast the joint view of the Catholic Church and Church of Ireland on abortion on the news on Christmas Day on each bulletin would somewhat disagree with your point.

token101

timzil wrote: »

OF course it wasn't on RTE. The liberal bias on that station is shocking. A couple of months a go they had a documentary called Gay Daddy trying to influence public opinion and "normalise" gay adoption in peoples minds. No fear they had anyone on arguing against it.

Liberal bias? They still have the Angelus FFS.

Daith

I never get this. A single gay person can adopt or foster a child already. This is a reality. What's unfortunate is if that gay person is in a relationship even a civil partnership and dies. Their partner has no legal right over the child that they raised together.

So this ad with it's protection of "marriage" wants this situation to continue instead of allowing two people to adopt rather than one.

Never mind that some same sex couples may not want to adopt children anyway.

spikethedog

Dr. Jonathan Crane wrote: »

It's almost 2013, better continue making this country as backwards as possible.

How is that 'anti-gay'?
It's pro-hetro-sexual.
Because an advert is 'pro' something, doesn't automatically make it 'anti' something else.
People are easily offended.

Corkfeen

unseenfootage wrote: »

I asked "Should everything be progressive" because your argument is rooted in the premise that homosexuals should have the right to marry because this is progressiveness and the opposite is backwardness.

But progressiveness does not equate to that which is good and wholesome for society.

Germany recently too steps to protect circumcision after a judge ruled that it should be banned.
The government also took decisive action against bestiality. This after the establishment of erotic zoos started to increase.
In April, a German brother and sister couple, lost their court case to have their incestuous relationship declared legal.

Those who were affected by these actions of the German State could argue that this is not progressive and the German government is backward.

Do you agree with them?

And there we have it, the slippery slope, I had sort of guessed you would be going down that path.

Circumcision has medical benefits. Bestiality, the animals can't consent so it isn't remotely comparable, the idea of it being legal in the first place was worrying.

There are two potential issues(probably more and a bit of an oversimplification) for an incestuous couple. Firstly, many incestuous relationships are related to psychological trauma(i'm sure other posters can go into greater detail than I) and secondly there's the issue of them having children as it can result in birth defects(Two children of the couple from the case that you referred to are disabled). So once again, it is not comparable as its far more complex than allowing a same sex couple to marry.

All of the things that you refer to have significant negative consequences, numerous countries across the world have same sex marriages. Guess what, the world didn't fall apart.......

sarkozy

Wow, I never knew it was so cool to be homophobic. That's me convinced.

Sinfonia

Same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples are separate issues.

One doesn't necessarily beget the other, so parts of the video are certainly misleading in that sense, as the implication is that if you are against same-sex couples adopting children, you should also be against same-sex marriage.

spikethedog

efb wrote: »

Best taken care of by a father and a mother- not factually true

"Only a man and a woman can make new life" FACT.