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

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Options
1…2021232526…118

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    No
    eorpach wrote: »
    I saw a charming lay person in the Sky News studio recently, commenting extensively on the passage of the Same Sex Marriage Bill in the UK. She expressed concern that the next step would be for her to be forced by the UK State into marrying her own son (you know, since she "loves" him and all).

    She was wearing a huge gold religious medallion around her neck for the entire broadcast. I'm not sure what that was about really....

    Another "interesting" discussion on the subject in the UK had a man ask if he'd then be able to marry his son and use it as a loophole to avoid his son paying inheritance tax.... erm, yeah that's called incest buddy!


  • Options
    #663
    Lou.m
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭Lou.m


    No
    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I'm absolutely fascinated as to what the results of the referendum will be.
    I think a lot of Irish people tend to be progressive towards more liberal views but the polls might become interesting when the debates raise the issue of two homosexual men or women raising a child.
    Still I'd be confidant that the majority will vote in favour of gay marriage.

    Gay people will have this right by the end of 2014 before the referendum it will not affect the outcome.

    We recognize UK marriage anyway. And gay people can get married there.

    In reality gay people will get married there and be recognized as married here.

    If there is a no result it will simply be about homophobia and bitterness.


  • Options
    #664
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    eorpach wrote: »
    I saw a charming lay person in the Sky News studio recently, commenting extensively on the passage of the Same Sex Marriage Bill in the UK. She expressed concern that the next step would be for her to be forced by the UK State into marrying her own son (you know, since she "loves" him and all).

    She was wearing a huge gold religious medallion around her neck for the entire broadcast. I'm not sure what that was about really....

    Jeremy Irons also offered a similar nugget of wisdom when he thought same-sex marriage might allow fathers to marry their sons as a way of avoiding inheritance tax.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/jeremy-irons-clarifies-mischievous-comments-gay-marriage-between-fathers-sons_n_3035974.html


  • Options
    #665
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    No
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Parents raising a child is nit relevant to the debate as government are going to legislate for thst before the referendum

    Oh I wasn't aware. Well that should take a lot of the sting out of the debate.


  • Options
    #666
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I think a lot of Irish people tend to be progressive towards more liberal views but the polls might become interesting when the debates raise the issue of two homosexual men or women raising a child.

    They should know that voting no equal marriage won't affect gay couples adopting children.

    Would they be comfortable with one gay person adopting children? Cos that's been legal for a number of years now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    eorpach wrote: »
    The only person comparing apples and oranges is you, Phil Ewinn.

    I simply drew an analogy between the the extension of civil marriage to all sections of society, and the inclusion of all kinds of ability in the one classroom. In particular, I was drawing attention to how massively the able-bodied majority has benefitted from engagement with the disabled minority in the classroom, and how any justification for a long-held State practice of discrimination within the broader educational system has fallen away in the past 20 years. I had hoped that you would be able to grasp the analogy of this point, but alas I over-estimated you.

    As regards marriage, and your dogmatic obsession that any change ought to benefit the majority in society, now and into the future, consider the following:
    • The Irish family law system places paramount importance on the interests of the child, not upon the interests of the parent. This is fact; read any Irish Court judgment on the issue. Aside from the merit as to whether or not the Irish legal framework should be shored up in relation to the guardianship (and I believe that it should), your constant comparison between Gay Marriage and (straight?) Fathers' Rights is both spurious and trite. It is not a case of one or the other, and it is not even a case of one without the other.
    • This Referendum concerns the rights of Gay Couples, only, and whether the State will extend the same rights and obligations to those relationships as befit the civil marriage of a man and a woman. This Referendum does not concern the interests of the child, nor the laws relating to guardianship. Its approval by the People will have no direct impact on either fathers or children.
    • As I have already stated, and I state again, in the Irish democratic framework, legislation is no place for civil rights; the Constitution is. Legislation is subject to change, re-interpretation and challenge both by a parliamentary majority, and a vested-interest minority. The system of checks and balances (i.e. Constitutional amendment) is the only way in Ireland to ensure that Civil Rights extend to all, in both this generation and the ones that follow.

    And finally, as to your overriding concern for the legacy we leave to future generations by a possible Constitutional re-definition of civil marriage, it is thus:

    The love people feel is equal, no matter who you choose to express that love to.

    What are we teaching future generations in Ireland if we leave them a legacy of laws that actively discriminate against any section of society? The fact that we are making efforts to equalise rights in society is the reward alone (in terms of legacy). By retaining a difference in terms of marriage status, you are complicit in telling everyone (now and generations-hence) that these two things (straight marriage and gay partnership) are fundamentally different and should be treated differently. That's not a morally defensible position in a democratic society. The benefit of a more inclusive institutional legal arrangement will be a more equal and open society, where everyone is tolerated and welcomed and valued for their contributions, rather than distinguished by their sexuality. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

    (As a side note, there's a striking deficiency in your logic in holding up civil marriage as being such a successful institution for hundreds of years, when you're simultaneously lamenting the absence of access-rights for the minority (ergo straight?) fathers to their children. It is the very paradigm of marriage, which you laud, that has created this difficulty for a minority of men in the first place. Its striking though that your concern for one minority being disenfranchised by the State's present definition of marriage does not extend to concern for another minority who are also disenfranchised. This logical dichotomy makes you at best insincere, but at worst, a troll.)

    And no, thankfully I'm not asking you to "solve world poverty or something". You'd be too busy arguing in circles with your two elbows to make any kind of positive impact on that whatsoever!

    Won't work in real life as I said earlier. You know that right?


  • Options
    #668
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Lou.m wrote: »
    Gay people will have this right by the end of 2014 before the referendum it will not affect the outcome.

    We recognize UK marriage anyway. And gay people can get married there.

    In reality gay people will get married there and be recognized as married here.

    No

    The Civil Partnership Act recognises marriages in other jurisdictions as civil partnerships

    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
    #669
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    And on the subject of the battle for recognition of same sex marriage as opposed to civil unions, he added: "It seems to me that now they're fighting for the name. I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/jeremy-irons-clarifies-mischievous-comments-gay-marriage-between-fathers-sons_n_3035974.html

    Anyone want to answer this ?


  • Options
    #670
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Won't work in real life as I said earlier. You know that right?

    What won't work?

    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
    #671
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Won't work in real life as I said earlier. You know that right?

    You know nothing Phill Ewinn


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/jeremy-irons-clarifies-mischievous-comments-gay-marriage-between-fathers-sons_n_3035974.html

    Anyone want to answer this ?

    It's being answered before. We won't change marriage. Just extend who can get married.


  • Options
    #673
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/jeremy-irons-clarifies-mischievous-comments-gay-marriage-between-fathers-sons_n_3035974.html

    Anyone want to answer this ?
    You answer it. How would marriage be changed or debased?

    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
    #674
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    Daith wrote: »
    They should know that voting no equal marriage won't affect gay couples adopting children.

    I think we both know that's exactly how they're going to argue it. I've no doubt these people aren't above lying as long as it gets them what they want.


  • Options
    #675
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Won't work in real life as I said earlier. You know that right?

    Fantastic dissection of his argument


  • Options
    #676
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Friend Computer wrote: »
    I think we both know that's exactly how they're going to argue it. I've no doubt these people aren't above lying as long as it gets them what they want.
    No. Alan Shatter has said adoption will be law regardless of the referendum so they can't use that angle.

    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
    #677
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Friend Computer wrote: »
    I think we both know that's exactly how they're going to argue it. I've no doubt these people aren't above lying as long as it gets them what they want.

    Well sure given the Iona crowds submission to the constitutional convention. Or their claims that people were being bullied into voting yes at it.


  • Options
    #678
    eorpach
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭eorpach


    eorpach wrote: »
    The only person comparing apples and oranges is you, Phil Ewinn.

    I simply drew an analogy between the the extension of civil marriage to all sections of society, and the inclusion of all kinds of ability in the one classroom. In particular, I was drawing attention to how massively the able-bodied majority has benefitted from engagement with the disabled minority in the classroom, and how any justification for a long-held State practice of discrimination within the broader educational system has fallen away in the past 20 years. I had hoped that you would be able to grasp the analogy of this point, but alas I over-estimated you.

    As regards marriage, and your dogmatic obsession that any change ought to benefit the majority in society, now and into the future, consider the following:
    • The Irish family law system places paramount importance on the interests of the child, not upon the interests of the parent. This is fact; read any Irish Court judgment on the issue. Aside from the merit as to whether or not the Irish legal framework should be shored up in relation to the guardianship (and I believe that it should), your constant comparison between Gay Marriage and (straight?) Fathers' Rights is both spurious and trite. It is not a case of one or the other, and it is not even a case of one without the other.
    • This Referendum concerns the rights of Gay Couples, only, and whether the State will extend the same rights and obligations to those relationships as befit the civil marriage of a man and a woman. This Referendum does not concern the interests of the child, nor the laws relating to guardianship. Its approval by the People will have no direct impact on either fathers or children.
    • As I have already stated, and I state again, in the Irish democratic framework, legislation is no place for civil rights; the Constitution is. Legislation is subject to change, re-interpretation and challenge both by a parliamentary majority, and a vested-interest minority. The system of checks and balances (i.e. Constitutional amendment) is the only way in Ireland to ensure that Civil Rights extend to all, in both this generation and the ones that follow.

    And finally, as to your overriding concern for the legacy we leave to future generations by a possible Constitutional re-definition of civil marriage, it is thus:

    The love people feel is equal, no matter who you choose to express that love to.

    What are we teaching future generations in Ireland if we leave them a legacy of laws that actively discriminate against any section of society? The fact that we are making efforts to equalise rights in society is the reward alone (in terms of legacy). By retaining a difference in terms of marriage status, you are complicit in telling everyone (now and generations-hence) that these two things (straight marriage and gay partnership) are fundamentally different and should be treated differently. That's not a morally defensible position in a democratic society. The benefit of a more inclusive institutional legal arrangement will be a more equal and open society, where everyone is tolerated and welcomed and valued for their contributions, rather than distinguished by their sexuality. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

    (As a side note, there's a striking deficiency in your logic in holding up civil marriage as being such a successful institution for hundreds of years, when you're simultaneously lamenting the absence of access-rights for the minority (ergo straight?) fathers to their children. It is the very paradigm of marriage, which you laud, that has created this difficulty for a minority of men in the first place. Its striking though that your concern for one minority being disenfranchised by the State's present definition of marriage does not extend to concern for another minority who are also disenfranchised. This logical dichotomy makes you at best insincere, but at worst, a troll.)

    And no, thankfully I'm not asking you to "solve world poverty or something". You'd be too busy arguing in circles with your two elbows to make any kind of positive impact on that whatsoever!
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Won't work in real life as I said earlier. You know that right?

    I'll take your last response as sufficient proof that I've exposed your "reasoned" arguments for the nonsensical trolling that they are, Phil Ewinn.

    Do all sincere participants in Irish democracy a favour on Referendum Day; stay home and argue with your elbows instead.

    Game, Set, Match to me.


  • Options
    #679
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    It's being answered before. We won't change marriage. Just extend who can get married.

    Its been incorrectly answered several times. Anyone else??


  • Options
    #680
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    eorpach wrote: »
    I'll take your last response as sufficient proof that I've exposed your "reasoned" arguments for the nonsensical trolling that they are, Phil Ewinn.

    Do all sincere participants in Irish democracy a favour on Referendum Day; stay home and argue with your elbows instead.

    Game, Set, Match to me.

    lol.

    Another rant from a poster that gets upset because I spoke the truth. Nice.


  • Options
    #681
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its been incorrectly answered several times. Anyone else??

    Nope. There is no definition of marriage in Ireland. It's has been interpreted by everyone including judges and idiots.

    The referendum next year will be the first time the people of Ireland get to define marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No
    Still not getting past "I just don't like it!", are you Phill?


  • Options
    #683
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    You answer it. How would marriage be changed or debased?

    I have answered.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You want to change marriage. Societies view of marriage will be changed. Ergo the impact marriage has had on society will change. Ergo society will change.

    Comprendez?

    Marriage is as I said earlier is a foundation of society. And we know it works as it is. So why change?


  • Options
    #684
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its been incorrectly answered several times. Anyone else??
    But you haven't answered how?

    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
    #685
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    mango salsa wrote: »
    But you haven't answered how?
    He's going to mention that you didn't answer some of his question so he is under no obligation to answer yours.


  • Options
    #686
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I have answered.

    That's not answering. That is saying. "It's changing because it's changing"

    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
    #687
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I have answered.

    An intelligent answer?


  • Options
    #688
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    An intelligent answer?

    Are you intelligent?


  • Options
    #689
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you intelligent?

    In that the constitution doesn't specify what marriage is so how can you change it?

    Yes more intelligent than you. Also I can read.

    Care for that intelligent answer again?


  • Options
    #690
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    That's not answering. That is saying. "It's changing because it's changing"

    Thats right. Were getting there.....


    It either changing or not changing on the basis of the outcome of a referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    eorpach
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭eorpach


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    lol.

    Another rant from a poster that gets upset because I spoke the truth. Nice.

    No, no. Merely grown weary of your circular arguments and your inept debating style. You don't respect my time Phil Ewinn, so why should I respect yours?

    I'll be quite happy to take you on again when you figure out that debating involves the earnest and logical dissection an opponent's argument; not the facile dismissal of it. I've accomplished the former both definitively and amicably; you, failed miserably to do both and in so doing have failed to defend or justify your nonsensical prejudices.

    Also: please consult a dictionary for the explanation of the term "rant" before you embarrass yourself by using it again incorrectly in the future.


Advertisement