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…2122242627…118

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    It either changing or not changing on the basis of the outcome of a referendum.

    It's not. It's actually being defined on the basis of a referendum.


  • Options
    #693
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Thats right. Were getting there.....

    It either changing or not changing on the basis of the outcome of a referendum.
    No we are not getting there. Please explain HOW it would change.

    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
    #694
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    eorpach wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not prejudice but I'm confident when I say you are.


  • Options
    #695
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    No we are not getting there. Please explain HOW it would change.

    Have people not explained this enough? If you'd like the sixteen page pull-out type approach then thats tough. I'm concise.

    One more time and for the last time.....

    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
    #696
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Can we move on to the why change debate now please?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Have people not explained this enough? If you'd like the sixteen page pull-out type approach then thats tough. I'm concise.

    One more time and for the last time.....

    What is the constitutional definition of marriage?


  • Options
    #698
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Have people not explained this enough? If you'd like the sixteen page pull-out type approach then thats tough. I'm concise.

    One more time and for the last time.....
    No. That is not an answer. That is just a vague meaningless non answer.

    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
    #699
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I have answered.


    No, you haven't. How will gay marriage change society? Why are you against gay marriage?


  • Options
    #700
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Can we move on to the why change debate now please?

    It will be extended to LGBT people because the people of Ireland voted for it.


  • Options
    #701
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    What is the constitutional definition of marriage?

    Are you telling me that gay couples can be married in the state now?




    Can we move on?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Can we move on to the why change debate now please?

    When you can tell us how there is change.

    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
    #703
    eorpach
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭eorpach


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not prejudice but I'm confident when I say you are.

    You're very welcome to add "prejudice" to the growing list of words you need to look up in the dictionary. I'll be delighted to defend that accusation when you can put it coherently into a sentence.


  • Options
    #704
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    eorpach wrote: »
    You're very welcome to add "prejudice" to the growing list of words you need to look up in the dictionary. I'll be delighted to defend that accusation when you can put it coherently into a sentence.

    ''Thats nice dear''


  • Options
    #705
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Are you telling me that gay couples can be married in the state now?




    Can we move on?

    Yes hence the word extended not changed.

    Could you answer my actual question please?


  • Options
    #706
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    When you can tell us how there is change.

    Jayzus wept..........

    Can we move on or no?


  • Options
    #707
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I have answered.

    You say marriage is the foundation of society, yet you don't want people getting married because of their sexuality. It's saying that forming long-term relationships aren't of value if the couple aren't heterosexual. That it isn't love and commitment that matters rather what matters is a certain combination of genitals.

    All you've said is that society will change. You have to show at the very least that it will be negative change to justify not allowing a subset of society to marry. Would you like to try and explain what negative change you foresee happening when same-sex marriage is offered in this country?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #708
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Jayzus wept..........

    Can we move on or no?

    You're saying marriage would change. Tell us 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
    #709
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Jayzus wept..........

    Can we move on or no?

    No you haven't answered the question.

    How will allowing more people to get married change marriage?


  • Options
    #710
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    SW wrote: »
    You say marriage is the foundation of society, yet you don't want people getting married because of their sexuality. It's saying that forming long-term relationships aren't of value if the couple aren't heterosexual. That it isn't love and commitment that matters rather what matters is a certain combination of genitals.

    All you've said is that society will change. You have to show at the very least that it will be negative change to justify not allowing a subset of society to marry. Would you like to try and explain what negative change you foresee happening when same-sex marriage is offered in this country?

    I'm not the looking for change. I'd like to include the other stuff I mentioned if there was change. Overall I believe the best fit for this is civil partnership.
    As I said earlier.


  • Options
    #711
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    No you haven't answered the question.

    How will allowing more people to get married change marriage?

    Unless there's going to be consensus we wont have any kind of debate. We're having a debate on the upcoming referendum. A referendum that will change (or define) or not change the way the state sees marriage.

    I've even highlighted the important bits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    eorpach
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭eorpach


    Daith wrote: »
    No you haven't answered the question.

    How will allowing more people to get married change marriage?

    Daith - I refer you to posts #592, #667 and #691 above - my pointless attempts to engage Phil Ewinn in amicable and meaningful debate.

    If he was capable of giving coherent expression to his views, instead of mere facile soundbytes, he'd probably have bored even himself enough into doing that by now.

    Phill Ewinn's posting frequency on this site is impressive for a 4 year membership - his objective competence for reasoned debate? Much less so.


  • Options
    #713
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not the looking for change. I'd like to include the other stuff I mentioned if there was change. Overall I believe the best fit for this is civil partnership.
    As I said earlier.

    Great and non white people should stand on the bus if a white person needs a seat. What was the point of changing that.


  • Options
    #714
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    No
    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?

    As a fully fledged member of "society" my view of marriage Is a union between 2 people who love each other. If gay couples are allowed to marry my view of marriage will not change!

    What impact does marriage have on "society" seeing as 37% of children are borne out of wedlock? Myself and most of my friends live with our partners and have no intention of getting married.

    How will "society" change if gay couples marry? Will the euro fall? Will there be more murders? Will "society" collapse as hundreds of thousands of gay people paint the buildings with rainbows? Will I lose my job because a gay couple will need it more? :confused:

    This is not the 1930's and you need to cop on and see that marriage is no longer a "foundation of society" :rolleyes:

    Your only argument seems to be "if it ain't broke then don't fix it!"


  • Options
    #715
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not the looking for change. I'd like to include the other stuff I mentioned if there was change. Overall I believe the best fit for this is civil partnership.
    As I said earlier.

    why, your opinion, is it better to deny same-sex couples the same legal recognition as hetero couples? How is it detrimental to society to have marriage equality for same-sex couples?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #716
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Unless there's going to be consensus we wont have any kind of debate. We're having a debate on the upcoming referendum. A referendum that will change (or define) or not change the way the state sees marriage.

    I've even highlighted the important bits.

    You didn't highlight define. Which we don't have at the moment. You highlighted the wrong word.


  • Options
    #717
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    Great and non white people should stand on the bus if a white person needs a seat. What was the point of changing that.

    Do not pass go. Go straight to page one
    >


  • Options
    #718
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    No
    So when there is marriage equality will the Catholic Church and iona be against same sex couples being divorced?


  • Options
    #719
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    SW wrote: »
    why, your opinion, is it better to deny same-sex couples the same legal recognition as hetero couples? How is it detrimental to society to have marriage equality for same-sex couples?
    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
    #720
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Unless there's going to be consensus we wont have any kind of debate. We're having a debate on the upcoming referendum. A referendum that will change (or define) or not change the way the state sees marriage.

    I've even highlighted the important bits.
    You're still not answering HOW it will change!

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Do not pass go. Go straight to page one
    >

    Honest question Phill. Why change voting and give it women. Why change marriage and allow interracial marriage.

    I really was expecting a better answer than your repetitive nonsense.


Advertisement