nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

adrag

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

J_E

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.

adrag

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

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.

efb

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

amdublin

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

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!

Phill Ewinn

adrag wrote: »

The mask is slipping, readjust it me aul flower

lol.

More jibes and digs? What are you afraid of?

Phill Ewinn

amdublin wrote: »

A step back in time is not necessarily a bad thing 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?

Nodin

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.

J_E

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...

Daith

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.

Annasopra

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.

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.

Nodin

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?

Annasopra

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?

Daith

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".

efb

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.

Daith

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.

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

J_E

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...

Nodin

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.

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).

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".

Billy86

amdublin wrote: »

A step back in time is not necessarily a bad thing 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.

seenitall

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.

efb

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!

Daith

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.

J_E

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.

Annasopra

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.

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!