Brenda Power in the Sunday Times

mobius42 wrote: »

I agree with registering your disgust with the Sunday Times about her but claiming incitement to hatred and contacting the Guards? That's a bit much, I think. Don't we have free speech in this country? She should be allowed to voice her opinions, no matter how bigoted or stupid they are.

I agree with you on this point. We have to remember that ringing the Garda is NOT the solution to shutting up Brenda Power and I firmly believe that she has the right to be heard. I would go as far as saying I support her right to be heard and would be appalled if anyone took away Brenda’s right to free speech.

But it too must be recognised that we have the right to reply to Brenda, im sure Brenda would support us on that front, if none other.

Brenda is a bit of a country bumpkin having been dragged up in Kilkenny, deeply conservative catholic lass, producing five children in the name of the family unit. Believe it or not educated in law and journalism, yes educated!

I have noticed she is very good at pointing out the buffoonery in any argument, as she did by dissecting the Pride march and using this as her main point in her argument against same sex marriage. The Pride march is not a true representation of same sex relationships, it is a march that allows people to express there differences, to a point. That’s it, it is not supposed to represent all other people who are NOT heterosexual, and it’s a march!! End of.

It would be as stupid of me to say that because of the latest Church procession, all these guys dressing in 14th century frocks marching around with their gold cups (bling) and crosses, just look at the Pope and his buddies, are a true representation of all Catholics, this very same church that has been slated in its contribution to so many rapes and physical abuse cases of children in its care and the break up of so many family units.

As we all know the church has nothing to do with this debate as it is CIVAL law that were talking about. Brenda knows this but still has to speak with her silver lined papist trap and divert us all from the true argument. The argument is that Brenda is so bigoted that she can’t see the truth and tries every trick in the book to envelope herself with the Church as the light of all knowledge, the true protector of the family, at the same time tarnishing Gay people with as much ridicule as possible and forgetting that were talking about Real peoples lives.

These are the very same Real People who want their right to express their true love for one another in their country by a recognised state marriage, protecting their relationship in the eyes of the law. These are the very same Real People who contribute to this state every day, contributing to the monitory and cultural systems as much as any citizen. Real People who are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, living in this, now diverse society, wanting their right to express themselves, the same way as any citizen in Ireland, despite Brenda Powers out dated, ignorant, selfish, egotistical minds set!

See Brenda wants us to argue about the marches and the differences between us all, divide and conquer!! Let’s not play into Brendas blessed hands and remain steadfast to the point. The POINT has been that same-sex marriages should be regarded as a human right, to be able to enter into marriage regardless of the genders of the participants.

So let’s forget about Side-Show-Brenda and her one man show and concentrate on the issue at hand. Side-Show-Brenda would love you to call the Garda, feeding into her ignorant, selfish, egotistical nature rather then us getting on with what we need to do.

OK, listened to the TodayFM segment.

She didn't hold herself very well. There was little for Conor to say because really Matt Cooper was doing a reasonable enough job deconstructing her arguments.

I think the first thing worth noting is that she had drawn back her position from that which was in the article to two points - at least initially. One relating to adoption and the 'aspirational ideal' for raising children was a heterosexual couple, and two that if people were protesting while wearing half a wedding dress or tuxedo at pride that gay people can't blame others for not taking them seriously.

This was already a deviation from the main points of her article..the main one being that 'wearing half a dress' at pride or the outward expression of some folks at pride speaks against the worthiness of gay people to the traditional (i.e. marriage). That gay people didn't have a right to such tradition as long as there were any people at pride in drag.

So she was already trying to reframe her argument to something I presume she figured would make more logical sense and that would be more logically acceptable to more people.

But as the debate went on her logic continued to be challenged.

I found it humerous she raised an extreme (i.e. a child being adopted by 'Ms Panti and her boyfriend') having just minutes earlier defended heterosexual couples from the same 'extreme' cases of alcoholics and criminals etc.

She then dismissed examples of studies raised about the raising of children by homosexual couples, and didn't in return cite any specific challenging studies, showing that she has in fact not researched the matter at all. She's just going on her gut feeling (and only accepting that which confirms her gut feeling, dismissing everything else).

She then tries to suggest that marriage is defined by its support for offspring. Cooper challenges her on that. There's a back on forth on that, Cooper whittles away the notion that marriage is defined by its provisions for children. So then, exasperated, with nowhere to turn, she pulls the "well children can't get married" card :pac: Clearly a point of desperation for Ms. Power.

Her lingering point was then that if children aren't involved, gay people should be happy with partnership, ignoring matters of 'seperate but equal' and cases like Conor's where children are involved, and should enjoy status and protection with regard to both parents. She seemed unwilling to recognise that the two ladies in question were his parents, that the relationship between the biological mother and father should take precedence from a 'legal provision' POV. Which is a pretty cruel suggestion to be honest.

One other point, not unique to Power, but something she raises..is the whole "well we shouldn't allow it because children of such couples will be teased". This is such a cowardly sentiment.. it really just gets on my wick. The problem is not going to be solved by gay people staying quiet and not asking for recognition and equality and protection. She seems to want to place the responsibility for that bullying etc. on the shoulders of people who'd dare to ask for equality. That point of view angers me no end. Kids used to be teased and bullied (and possibly still are) for having a different colour of skin, or for having poor parents, or for having rich parents, or for having parents of mixed race etc. But with issues of race, for example, the answer wasn't to stop mixed race couples of dissuade them. The answer was to challenge those who created the environment in which bullying like that was allowed. It's not up to gay people to solve that by simply disappearing into the shadows!

In summary she seems like someone who has a deeprooted belief about the matter who cannot countenance challenges to that belief..who seeks only that which affirms her view, and who isn't open to changing her mind.

Ah she is hilarious, is she a few spuds short of an Irish stew or what? why is she throwing around the misogynistic comment if she bothered to read half the comments and letters written about her and to her she would see they are from women. Does she think homosexuality only involves men or something? Hmmmm misogynistic lesbians there's an oxymoron if ever I heard of one.

Gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children. People should not be judged on how they look and dress. Children brought up by gay couples do at least as well, if not much better, than the children of heterosexual households. The Pride parade is intended as a celebration, not a provocation. And Miss Panti, aka Rory O’Neill, is to be addressed as “she”.

Some people did make strong and considered arguments rebutting the opinions I’d expressed, and some of their points are summarised above. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that they are opinions.

Hmm, no Brenda. The bolded point is not an opinion.

As per her first article she was using the attire and behaviour of a few gay people to argue against the worthiness of the tradition of marriage for all gay people (and latterly suggested the same with regard to their worthiness as parents..see her comment about 'ms panti and her boyfriend' adopting).

It is not merely an opinion that people should not be painted with the same brush based on the attire or behaviour of a minority who share some innate trait with others.

To do is..to stereotype. To negatively stereotype an entire group of people based on some innate quality (e.g. race, sexuality, handed-ness, hair colour, eye colour etc.) is a logical fallacy. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simply not logically correct. And as a result, quite rightly, leads to the concept of various '-isms' and defence against them.

Lawyers still study logic, right?

The point is, I do not see how that is possible. Marriage is primarily intended for the protection of children who may result from a union of a man and a woman, which is the only sort of union capable of producing offspring.

This? Now this is an opinion. Marriage is not IMO primarily about protection of children. This was something that was debated with her on the matt cooper show.

Possibly the silliest argument against this interpretation is the one that goes: “Oh, so does that mean that married couples who don’t have children should have their marriage licences revoked then?” This deliberately confuses the objective of protecting offspring and the obligation to produce them.

If there's no obligation then the means to biologically produce children isn't a requisite for enjoying the status of marriage. Forget about menopausal women, by this logic I assume she would also argue that sterile couples of any age should not be allowed to marry.

edit - I also read that apparently the case she cites was of a woman who became pregnant via IVF treatment and donor sperm.. the exact same method lesbian couples use to have children!

Boiled down to a single sentence, the one line that my many critics would have me write on that blackboard is: “I must not upset a gay person.” Nor must I disagree with their opinions, dissent from their agenda, and I must not say that men in cutaway green wedding dresses look a bit daft.

Darling, you can say they look daft all you like. The point is you said that because they did that, gay people in general are not worthy of the tradition of marriage. That was one of the primary points of your original article. You've since engaged in some revisionist history, but that doesn't change what you originally wrote for those of us with reasonably functioning memory.

Within a community that expects and demands so much tolerance, there appears to be a vocal, militant and markedly misogynistic element that is reluctant to show tolerance for any opinions that don’t accord precisely with its own. No democratic society can afford to indulge groups who seek to punish and silence those who dare disagree with them.

So here we go..painted into a corner by her own poor logic, she nails herself to a cross. I don't know how many militant or misogynistic letters she recieved, but I dare say they were likely - again - a minority. Yet again she reaches to characterise all of us similarly. What about the rest of us who simply argued against you with logic, Brenda? Should be not be indulged then?

Her ego is simply too big to accept where she misfired, so she revises history (i.e. revises what she actually says) so as to avoid addressing her failed logic, and then paints her critics as women-hating and undemocratic. Dirty, dirty tactics.

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Pride makes me sick.

Care to provide some more background to this?