Protests at Micheal McDowell on Friday

UU · 28-05-2006 04:40PM #1

Yes. A lot of us hate Michael McDowell because he's an idiot. On Friday, there was a meeting regarding same-sex partnerships in the Royal College Of Surgeons. It would be wonderful if gays and lesbians had the right to marry in some form or another.

Well, these homophobic people attended the meeting and started a distruption. They started saying that all homosexuals are evil and that they don't want children in the hands of perverts which is very narrow-minded indead. The were waving copies of the Constituation over there heads and threw one at Mr. McDowell. The police then arrived luckily when they were leaving.

It's a sad reality that in this day and age, there are people like this who discriminate for fun. I know one thing though, we cannot give in to these people. Homosexuals deserve to have equal rights as others.

Here is the story: RTE

BuffyBot · 28-05-2006 06:19PM

I don't know where to start on what's wrong with that post. Admirable sentiment, but here are the highlights:

A lot of us hate Michael McDowell because he's an idiot

Generalisation. And he's far from an idiot.

Well, these homophobic people who sounded like they were from the country or something

..or something. Yes, indeed.

It's a sad reality that in this day and age, there are people like this who discriminate for fun

Discriminating for fun? I doubt they were doing it for fun. Now, while we may not agree what what they are protesting about, they're doing it because they believe in something, not because they fancied chucking some paper at McDowell for sh*ts and giggles.

shoegirl · 30-05-2006 08:16AM

I don't think just because they are prejudiced that makes them "from the country." There are a lot of extremely prejudiced people living in Dublin. Just look at the behaviour of local youths outside St Patricks Cathedral last week chanting rascist slogans at supporters of the Afghan hunger strikers. Sadly, there is a festering resentment from a minority of the population against minorities that has the potential to lead to a major backlash against all minorities. Racial hate is sadly usually symptomatic of this - generally bigots who hate people because of something they cannot change (ethnicity) are even more willing to hate on the grounds of things that they perceive can be changed (sexual identity etc).

Hmm_Messiah · 30-05-2006 09:50AM

Sadly the original post is as good an example as you get regarding how prejudice will remain with us as long as those protesting against prejudice maintain their own .

"from the country" is the most ironice degoratory remark I've seen here in ages when you consider the difficulties often experiences by gay people "from the country".

UU · 30-05-2006 05:09PM

Oh geesh, I wasn't meaning to sound like I'm linking homophobes to country people! If I sounded prejudice, I really am not as I am too from the country but like in Dublin. Of course, there are homophobes in Dublin or Cork or in the middle of nowhere. I've edited the original post as it seemed like people misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was just saying that they were from the countryside because, well, they were from there.

It seems a bit over-the-top that a group of people from miles away come all the way up to Dublin on a Friday morning to protest at some meeting about civil unions. Barging into a meeting is a weak and poor attempt to make a point. Why don't they go out onto Grafton Street and do it where everyone is around? Do you know why, because they are chickens and and have no bravery. They don't have the guts to go out into town and protest because they know that people will start opposing them. Yes, they've really showed themselves up . . . . . . .

As for Michael McDowell, BuffyBot, I didn't say everyone dislikes him but a lot do for many valid reasons which you really should explore explore. He isn't the worst but he isn't the best either.

As for discriminating for fun, they certainly looked like they were having a good time! :rolleyes:

UU · 30-05-2006 05:13PM

Oh, also the protesters said that they were from an ancient order of Hibernians which if you're not familiar with religious groups, they are an Catholic sect and are terrible for being anti-gay and are very sectarian also.

RealJohn · 30-05-2006 05:29PM

Those idiots don't represent Catholics or Catholic ideals however this does not mean that we should make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. It works. It's a balanced equation. It needs to be one of each.
If you have a same sex couple, why not have more than two? Who's to say that you can't love two people? Why should these people have to choose?

You can use your will to leave whatever you like to whoever you like. You can leave written instructions with regards what you want in the event of serious illness. Why do homosexuals need to be married?

ixoy · 30-05-2006 06:55PM

RealJohn wrote:

Why do homosexuals need to be married?

Why do hetrosexuals need to be married?

Stark · 30-05-2006 10:03PM

RealJohn wrote:

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It works. It's a balanced equation. It needs to be one of each.

Doesn't the LHS have to be the same as the RHS for an equation to balance? By your logic, marriage should only be for same-sex partners. :rolleyes:

RealJohn · 30-05-2006 10:43PM

ixoy wrote:

Why do hetrosexuals need to be married?

They don't.

stark wrote:

Doesn't the LHS have to be the same as the RHS for an equation to balance?

Yes, yes, very clever. You know exactly what I mean though.

Stark · 30-05-2006 10:52PM

RealJohn wrote:

You know exactly what I mean though.

I don't. You'll need a far better explanation than "that's how it should be as that's how the equation balances", otherwise I'm not buying anything you say and you can **** off to some forum where they'll listen to rants. I hear stormfront is lovely this time of year.

RealJohn · 30-05-2006 11:32PM

That's some pretty good debating there. If in doubt, accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of nazism.
And I hardly think my comments constitute a rant.

But if you're going to insist on poking holes in how I make my point rather than dealing with the point itself, fine. I'll be very clear. Reproduction requires a man and a woman. If either is absent from a couple, the couple cannot reproduce. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for a family (I know it doesn't always work out that way before you decide to get into that). Since a same-sex couple cannot have children, there is no reason for them to be married.

rainbow kirby · 31-05-2006 12:27AM

Plenty of hetero couples choose not to have children too, and nobody tells them that they should not be married.

Annasopra · 31-05-2006 08:29AM

Reproduction requires a man and a woman. If either is absent from a couple, the couple cannot reproduce. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for a family (I know it doesn't always work out that way before you decide to get into that). Since a same-sex couple cannot have children, there is no reason for them to be married.

What about opposite sex couples who can't have children - should they be barred from getting married too

By the way there are lots of same sex couples parenting children

Hmm_Messiah · 31-05-2006 08:52AM

RealJohn wrote:

Those idiots don't represent Catholics or Catholic ideals however this does not mean that we should make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage........Why do homosexuals need to be married?

What an idiotic statement. I mean that as a considered response. When challenged not on your wording, but your demented logic, you move away from one "argument" to suggest marriage is meant only as a cradle for baby making.

Do you really understand yourself what you are saying? Marriage being "sanctified" is a theological concept, viewing the love between the couple as symbolic as god's love for humanity. In that respect:
1. there is NO qualitative difference between loving a woman or loving another man
2. Catholicism being Patriarchal with a male deity, male redeemer and male priesthood, same sex couples would if anything be more symbolic of the deity-mankind dynamic.

btw:
* Gay people can have children; do have children. You didn't know this?
* Childless heterosexual couples should be deprived of marriage according to your argument
* With your understanding of marriage I would worry about any one who enters into that "contract" with you, seeing as it would be devoid of any expression of love between people, limited only to some divine symbolism which dehumanises your partner, and if babies don't come...tut tut
* When a couple are past childbearing age, or their kids have grown up and moved away, is their marriage dissolved ?
* the dualism of "there needs to be one of each" reflects more shintoism than Catholicism , and in fact when taken to its broadest meaning is a heresy.

You might also ask yourself had you any "good intention" in posting in this forum ?

elekid · 31-05-2006 08:57AM

RealJohn wrote:

If you have a same sex couple, why not have more than two? Who's to say that you can't love two people? Why should these people have to choose?

What are you talking about? Who ever said anything about having more than two people? Of course it's possible for both heterosexual and homosexual people to love more than one person but no one is suggesting marriages between between more than two people. It's a completely seperate issue.

All homosexual unions require is the allowance of unions between two adults rather than having it so narrowly defined as a union between a man and a woman.

RealJohn wrote:

I'll be very clear. Reproduction requires a man and a woman. If either is absent from a couple, the couple cannot reproduce. The purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for a family (I know it doesn't always work out that way before you decide to get into that). Since a same-sex couple cannot have children, there is no reason for them to be married.

So if a heterosexual couple is known to be infertile before they get married, should they be allowed to marry? Who are you to decide that a same-sex couple does not constitute a family?

Hagar · 31-05-2006 09:13AM

Johnnymcg wrote:

What about opposite sex couples who can't have children - should they be barred from getting married too

They are barred from getting married by the Catholic Church already. Fact.
Marriage is for procreation according to them.

Hmm_Messiah · 31-05-2006 10:38AM

Hagar wrote:

They are barred from getting married by the Catholic Church already. Fact.
Marriage is for procreation according to them.

Is this the Catholic Church in some cartoon dimension. I've never seent that canon law.

And in 2006 people will have to separate Catholicisim from the many other religions people now refer to as thie church, and institutions like marriage as civil contract as opposed to a church one.

Hagar · 31-05-2006 10:59AM

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Is this the Catholic Church in some cartoon dimension. I've never seent that canon law.

No cartoon dimension at all, try Ballymun Dublin 11. My first cousin was refused permission to marry because his intended, a wheelchair bound girl, who has since died, was incapable of bearing children. It broke their hearts and turned them from the church.

I can't quote the relevent Canon Law either, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Ignorance of the law etc...

/edit I'm just a bit peeved by it.

Hmm_Messiah · 31-05-2006 12:32PM

Hagar

I'm sure you are very peeved by it. Thats a terrible situation, but I dout it was based on some one being unable to bear kids. Maybe it was some priests individual intention.

I know there are 8 impediments to marriage (my canon law is a bit rusty) but I think there would be a more general outrage if people could not marry becuase of not being able to have children

Impotence does invalidate marriage, which is I think a grotesque interpration of sacrament (it would suggests Gods love, which marriage symbolises does not extend to people in some way "defective")

Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

btw to have a valid full christian marriage a baptised man and woman need only express that explicit intention to God and they are married, everything else is just technical church law.

Hagar · 31-05-2006 01:36PM

The inability to consumate a marriage is impotence, this in itself invalidates a marriage.
If the impotence, either male or female, is manifest prior to the marriage then there can be no marriage so it was forbidden.

This couple were penalized for honesty. They could have claimed that she might be able to have children and then the Church would have had to allow them to get married and leave the arrival of children to the grace of God. A Church that preaches faith and miracles Wouldn't allow the marriage to go ahead. It was very simple. You can't make babies for the Church so you can't get married in a Church. A mean spirited law enforced by a mean spirited Church on behalf of a loving God.

I know the marriage contract is between the man and woman in the sight of God, why is it deemed necessary to people in this situation the dignity and pleasure of a Church sanctioned marriage?

Infertility discovered in marriage need not be grounds to invalidate the marriage, unless your last name is Tudor.

I must admit I had the references and it was a bit petty of me not to publish them.
I am a bit tired of the "show me" attitude on boards in general. No offence to yourself Messiah.

Hmm_Messiah · 31-05-2006 04:26PM

none taken

just prefer reading your contributions to humour.

sad when so many outside "forces" decide they need to control or impact what happens between two people.

The people I was gonna marry (hehe long story) woould of been by handfasting anyways, nice people centred ritual

Hagar · 31-05-2006 04:35PM

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

just prefer reading your contributions to humour.

Thanks. Yeah I'm usually a bit more light hearted. It's just that the girl only died a couple of weeks ago and I feel my cousin and her were needlessly robbed of something. TBH he's not quite the full shilling and they only had each other. Now he's on his own. I'm a bit raw over it.

RealJohn · 31-05-2006 06:51PM

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

You might also ask yourself had you any "good intention" in posting in this forum ?

My intention was to voice my opinion and see if those most closely involved in the issue were capable of a mature debate on the subject without resorting to name calling.
However:

Stark wrote:

I hear stormfront is lovely this time of year.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

What an idiotic statement.

I also made it clear that it wasn't about "depriving" people of marriage but simply that there is no reason for homosexuals to be married (and yes, I also don't think there's any reason for heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children to be married).

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Gay people can have children; do have children.

Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, sure. However two men or two women in a relationship cannot have a child together. Children should be raised by both their parents together and ideally in a properly balanced family, one where they have both a strong male influence and a strong female influence.

Anyway, since my opinions obviously offend you, I'll leave it at that. I don't really expect to change any of your minds, merely reminding you that not everyone thinks that you're right, even if we don't think you're evil either.

BuffyBot · 31-05-2006 07:49PM

I also don't think there's any reason for heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children to be married

No reason for heterosexual couples who are capable of having a child to be married either, is there? Childbirth is biology, where as marriage is a social construct. Marriage doesn't automatically make things better for the child.

RealJohn · 01-06-2006 01:24AM

No but at least it's a concrete support structure.

BuffyBot · 01-06-2006 09:15AM

No but at least it's a concrete support structure

As is a steady relationship, really then.

Hmm_Messiah · 01-06-2006 12:36PM

marriage is not a concrete support structure for children

family is (usually)

Do you have any real understanding of what you are talking about?
btw i didn't "namecall" I said your statement is idiotic, everything you've said since supports that.

children need love, nourishment, support and training. Within what "family" context they receive that is wide and varied.

Your arguments suggest no one incapable of having kids should marry, and no child outside of being reared by a biological father and mother should exist; all the one parent children, the orphaned, the adopted, those is foster homes have no real right to exist and should disappear. This is a reasonable extention of how you are presently thinking. Or maybe you mean that they are better off when daddy and mammy are around and married? Who are you to determine that? what proof have you ?

I seriously hope you are either very young and your mind is still being informed or you're of a much older generation and suffering the bias of earlier times . Your understanding of human needs and relationships is scary.

In some way you are right, there is no reason for gay people to marry, or straight childless people. or indeed any one; marriage is indeed a social construct, and as such may well need to be re-evaluatated regarding its significance in a much changed society. but as long as society understands that adults "pairbond " in longterm and socially recognised "units" then the right of 2 gay people to marry is equal to that of any heterosexual couple. To claim otherwise is to admit prejudice and bigotry. In reality there is no difference between gay and straight couples; at the end of the day gender is equally just a construct.

RealJohn · 01-06-2006 06:40PM

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Do you have any real understanding of what you are talking about?
btw i didn't "namecall" I said your statement is idiotic, everything you've said since supports that.

You're still name-calling.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Your arguments suggest no one incapable of having kids should marry, and no child outside of being reared by a biological father and mother should exist; all the one parent children, the orphaned, the adopted, those is foster homes have no real right to exist and should disappear. This is a reasonable extention of how you are presently thinking.

You can pick holes in many statements if your intention is solely to pick holes. I think it's debatable whether or not you could say that your assertions are a "reasonable extention" of what I've said.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Or maybe you mean that they are better off when daddy and mammy are around and married? Who are you to determine that? what proof have you ?

Are you honestly claiming that you don't believe that children are better off being raised by their biological parents, if we can assume that, in general, most people aren't child abusers unfit to raise children?

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I seriously hope you are either very young and your mind is still being informed or you're of a much older generation and suffering the bias of earlier times .

I don't think my age is of any relevance but if it matters to you, I'm in my mid-twenties.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

at the end of the day gender is equally just a construct.

Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you honestly saying that you think gender is a social construct?

rainbow kirby · 01-06-2006 08:52PM

Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you honestly saying that you think gender is a social construct?

Sex is what's between your legs, gender is an identity. Where do you think genderqueer/androgynous/intersex people fit in?

Lunoma · 16-06-2006 09:02PM

RealJohn wrote:

Are you honestly claiming that you don't believe that children are better off being raised by their biological parents, if we can assume that, in general, most people aren't child abusers unfit to raise children?

Sorry about you Mr. Real John but why does one's parents being biological make a blind bit a difference?

My father who I so dearly love, who has always been there for me, who has always been my father, is not my biological father. A father or a mother isn't defined by who you came from, it is the people who raised you which is mopre important. And for your info, I've met my biological father. Sure he told me to f*ck off and get out of his life! I'm bloody glad, mister, that I didn't get raised by such a creep. I know who I can truly call "Dad".

Of course, child abusers are unfit to raise children so what's that got to do with gays and lesbians unless you're one of them types who views paedophiles and homosexuals as the same thing? (which I hope for your own bloody sake you aren't)

Let's give you a pretty case study. Just say you marry a woman and you find out that she is infertile, are you going to suddenly divorce her and marry someone else who can have children with you? Is love not love when mixed with such a murderous thing?

Are you blind to what love really is?

Sorry mate but ya have no backbone against your arguments - they make no sense whatsoever! And yes you are entitled to your point of view but most people would think your talking a heap of crap which is growing bigger by every post!

Protests at Micheal McDowell on Friday

Comments