RobertKK wrote: » If everyone can marry what sex they want, then surely traditional marriage is destroyed by it, given marriage was only between a man and a woman.
RobertKK wrote: » I think some so called liberal people want everyone to think the same on all issues and have problems with people from the Iona Institute because it gives a different viewpoint, then they need to look down on the person with an opposing opinion. If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change. If we live in a free society then people should be allowed to have different opinions without needing to put the person into a box. If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.
RobertKK wrote: » If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.
efb wrote: » Silenced like Walters, O'Brien, Quinn and Casey silenced Rory O'Neill's view on RTE???
RobertKK wrote: » If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.
Links234 wrote: » Calling marriage equality "The destruction of traditional marriage" is a pretty homophobic thing to say though.
RobertKK wrote: » None of them are given a free slot to promote their views like Olivia O'Leary is on RTE.
drunkmonkey wrote: » I don't agree someone wanting to protect marriage (family environment) is being homophobic. Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays. I can completely understand why people will fight to keep it as it is. Racisms and Pro Marriage can't be really thrown together as easy as your doing it.
drunkmonkey wrote: » You mis read me it and took a cheap shot for some thanks. These threads always go the same way. There completely lob sided. Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.
drunkmonkey wrote: » You mis read me it and took a cheap shot for some thanks. These threads always go the same way. There completely lob sided.Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.
efb wrote: » Nobody here is challenging their right to air their views, but people have a right to challenge them. Like the BNP are racist and should be exposed and identified as such.
AerynSun wrote: » Therein lies the problem: if you dig a little deeper into WHY people believe marriage is something between a man and a woman and the best place for a child with a male and female parent.... that's where you'll find the homophobia. It's not about suppressing people's right to speak their mind or have an opinion... but if the opinion is based on the irrational fear/dislike of something.... then that opinion IS homophobic. And sure, people are allowed to hold homophobic opinions, but then people are also allowed to point that out. WHY should marriage not be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? WHY is the best place for a child in a family that has a mommy and a daddy - rather than in a family with two loving parents? Dig a little deeper. And please don't come back with "Because God said so".
padd b1975 wrote: » Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.
Daith wrote: » David Quinn writes for the Irish Independent. He has his own outlet. I don't get your point?
padd b1975 wrote: » Yes, by all means challenge it. Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.
RobertKK wrote: » Are you forced to have to pay a licence fee for the Irish independent as one is for RTE?
RobertKK wrote: » Why can't a person marry as many people as they want? Marriage can be defined to mean anything. It doesn't change that for centuries and longer it was between a man and a woman. Redefine marriage if you want, but then why stop at just same sex marriage?
RobertKK wrote: Why can't a person marry as many people as they want? Marriage can be defined to mean anything. It doesn't change that for centuries and longer it was between a man and a woman. Redefine marriage if you want, but then why stop at just same sex marriage?
Billy86 wrote: » How would you define 'traditional'? There are examples or gay unions from hundreds and even thousands of years ago - some just a 'secondary relationship' to others being strongly bound, celebrated and ritualised unions, and even marriages themselves. The idea of 'traditional marriage' or 'what marriage was supposed to be' is a bit of a farce to be honest, given that the concept well out dates any recorded history.
Frank Lee Midere wrote: » What societies allowed homosexual marriages? Genuine question.
RayM wrote: » Yes, they're homophobic. Pretty much everything that guy on the Saturday Night Show said about them (and John Waters) was accurate. It seems weird that people who usually object to 'political correctness' are so keen for everyone to pussyfoot around on this issue, rather than just calling a spade a spade. Of course the Iona Institute (and similar homophobic groups and individuals) shouldn't be silenced, but they never have been. If anything, they get a disproportionately large amount of media coverage. Week in, week out, the likes of David Quinn, Breda O'Brien and John Waters all get paid by national newspapers to to express the kind of views that they claim nobody is allowed to express nowadays. That is a silly, silly post."If you redefine it to include same-sex couples, aren’t you effectively opening the doors to polygamy?" "Perhaps people should be allowed to marry their pets too?" Well, around a century ago, you almost definitely would have heard similarly illogical and idiotic arguments from those opposed to female suffrage..."Well, if you’re going to allow women to vote, aren’t you effectively also extending the franchise to children? Perhaps hamsters should be allowed to vote too."
Daith wrote: » So is silencing other peoples opinions.
Yes, by all means challenge it
RobertKK wrote: » None of them are given a free slot to promote their views like Olivia O'Leary is on RTE. Had a chat on twitter with a well know person in RTE, said it is hard to find people who want to come on the shows. I wouldn't if asked. all one would get is abuse, for example David Quinn got death threats at one point.
eviltwin wrote: » It's now legal in many countries, the world hasn't caved in. Go figure.
