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…457910…118

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Gay men were marrying thousands of years before you were born. Mixed polygamist relationships were common. The question is whether we go back in time.

    The mask is slipping, readjust it me aul flower


  • Options
    #183
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's what's happening now with liberal fascism. Theres just no handbook for the modern nazi
    I'm not sure that means what you think it means. It also has a pretty bizarre comparison.


  • Options
    #184
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's what's happening now with liberal fascism. Theres just no handbook for the modern nazi

    Try the bible, , it's a good start bud


  • Options
    #185
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    But people are claiming exactly that. They are claiming marriage should not change because traditional marriage as defined by Hyde v Hyde is a man and a woman.

    Well, I don't really care like. Once we get down to brass tacks it'll be "should we" change and not "we should" change.

    Opening marriage up to homosexuals and polygamists (marriage equality) should be debated before we vote on it for sure.


  • Options
    #186
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Well, I don't really care like. Once we get down to brass tacks it'll be "should we" change and not "we should" change.

    Opening marriage up to homosexuals and polygamists (marriage equality) should be debated before we vote on it for sure.

    heres the thing, can we just do gay marriage in this thread as its not `bout the II being polyphobic


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    amdublin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 20,650 CMod ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Gay men were marrying thousands of years before you were born. Mixed polygamist relationships were common. The question is whether we go back in time.

    A step back in time is not necessarily a bad thing :confused: it's okay to acknowledge that things didn't work out and try something again (i.e. Marriage for every person).

    Personally I think it's very selfish and unChristian for the Iona Institute to just want marriage for themselves/heterosexuals.

    Fek off Iona Institute!


  • Options
    #188
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    adrag wrote: »
    The mask is slipping, readjust it me aul flower

    lol.

    More jibes and digs? What are you afraid of?


  • Options
    #189
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    amdublin wrote: »
    A step back in time is not necessarily a bad thing :confused: it's okay to acknowledge that things didn't work out and try something again (i.e. Marriage for every person).

    Personally I think it's very selfish and unChristian for the Iona Institute to just want marriage for themselves/heterosexuals.

    Fek off Iona Institute!

    Which is a view. Once we get over the namecalling and petty digs we might discus that.

    What do you think?


  • Options
    #190
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    lol.

    More jibes and digs? What are you afraid of?


    Well Phill, as you're against gays marrying, you might tell us what it is exactly that you're afraid of...its a tad more relevant.


  • Options
    #191
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Which is a view. Once we get over the namecalling and petty digs we might discus that.

    What do you think?
    I want to know why you're jumping to things like 'modern Nazis' and 'liberal fascism' and what kind of direction you're actually taking at all... :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Which is a view. Once we get over the namecalling and petty digs we might discus that.

    What do you think?

    The entire topic is about discussion and not sending legal threats when you hear something you dislike.


  • Options
    #193
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Well, I don't really care like. Once we get down to brass tacks it'll be "should we" change and not "we should" change.

    Opening marriage up to homosexuals and polygamists (marriage equality) should be debated before we vote on it for sure.
    Marriage Equality proponents are not looking for polygamy to be legalised. Please don't misrepresent the situation.

    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
    #194
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    efb wrote: »
    heres the thing, can we just do gay marriage in this thread as its not `bout the II being polyphobic

    Grand.

    Can we accept then too that the two relationships are not the same? Not unequal. But still, not the same.


  • Options
    #195
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Grand.

    Can we accept then too that the two relationships are not the same? Not unequal. But still, not the same.


    What's your objection to gay marriage phill?


  • Options
    #196
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Which is a view. Once we get over the namecalling and petty digs we might discus that.

    What do you think?
    Right ok. Bringing polygamy into the discussion is a petty dig. Can we get over that?

    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
    #197
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Marriage Equality proponents are not looking for polygamy to be legalised. Please don't misrepresent the situation.

    Exactly. You're not voting on polygamy next year.

    It's kinda like saying "I'm voting no to interracial marriage because I don't want gay people to marry".


  • Options
    #198
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Grand.

    Can we accept then too that the two relationships are not the same? Not unequal. But still, not the same.

    no two hero marriages are there same but all are equal, none more special than others.


  • Options
    #199
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Grand.

    Can we accept then too that the two relationships are not the same? Not unequal. But still, not the same.

    No. Please explain the difference between a homosexual relationship and a hetro relationship.


  • Options
    #200
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Right ok. Bringing polygamy into the discussion is a petty dig. Can we get over that?

    It's highly relevant. But I'll drop it. What ever suits


  • Options
    #201
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    It's highly relevant. But I'll drop it. What ever suits
    No...it's not. This is a discussion about gay politics. One big mountain at a time, eh?

    So...'liberal fascism' and 'modern Nazis'? Not getting an explanation I assume? Ah...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    It's highly relevant. But I'll drop it. What ever suits

    It was suit us all very well if you explained your objection to gay marriage phill. Its more than a bit odd you can't do so.


  • Options
    #203
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    This has always been the most neglected point when gay marriage is discussed. As long as the State affords additional "privileges" (not rights) to couples who marry (gay or straight) then it will ALWAYS be discriminatory.

    Seems to me that an easy solution to ensure equal treatment for all is that the state ceases to pretend that sprinkling people with magical marriage dust somehow imbues the couple with virtue (gay, straight, whatever).


  • Options
    #204
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    No. Please explain the difference between a homosexual relationship and a hetro relationship.

    Think we've been over this. I'll tune in again so when agreement is reached. This is fairly basic stuff.

    "Equal to" does not mean "the same as".


  • Options
    #205
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    No
    amdublin wrote: »
    A step back in time is not necessarily a bad thing :confused: it's okay to acknowledge that things didn't work out and try something again (i.e. Marriage for every person).
    Especially remembering that the time Western society largely 'moved forward' was during the era of the Dark Ages, Crusades and Knights Templar, the Spanish Inquisition and so on.


  • Options
    #206
    seenitall
    Registered Users Posts: 3,717 ✭✭✭seenitall


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Gay men were marrying thousands of years before you were born. Mixed polygamist relationships were common. The question is whether we go back in time.
    LOL. But it's alright to be stepping back in time following legends written by goat herds in the Middle East thousands of years ago for our ethical edification of today. I think it's high time we introduced a bit more diversity about going back in time for our moral instruction in the modern world. Can only be a good thing after the odious bigoted claptrap we've been fed so far.


  • Options
    #207
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Think we've been over this. I'll tune in again so when agreement is reached. This is fairly basic stuff.

    "Equal to" does not mean "the same as".

    phil you in and out of this debate like my bf with me last night! :D


  • Options
    #208
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Think we've been over this. I'll tune in again so when agreement is reached. This is fairly basic stuff.

    "Equal to" does not mean "the same as".

    Why not? I actually would like you explain because to be honest you're doing a piss poor job at the moment.

    You have given no reason against gay marriage. You bring up polygamy to redefine the issue. You support open discussion but won't comment if Iona were correct in sending legal threats to silence people.


  • Options
    #209
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Daith wrote: »
    Why not? I actually would like you explain because to be honest you're doing a piss poor job at the moment.
    Think it's fair to say this is not exactly an uncommon occurrence at this stage.

    >Make a statement that will subtly claw at someone
    >Disappear/'I'm leaving this argument'/'guess this is too difficult for you guys to understand'/ignore previous comment
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    "Equal to" does not mean "the same as".
    I see what you're getting at, and all there is to say is, that's a rather disappointing view to have.


  • Options
    #210
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    It's highly relevant. But I'll drop it. What ever suits
    Ah Phil - don't make yourself a victim. All I did was ask for some honesty.

    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
    #211
    DK man
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭DK man


    I know a guy who is living with two sisters and wants to marry both -who are we to judge them - they have a house full of kids and they all get on so well. I say each to their own - no rules like!


Advertisement