Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

drunkmonkey · 27-01-2014 05:18PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ok, if you want polygamy legalised will you also allow gay polygamy too?

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

eyescreamcone · 27-01-2014 05:21PM

No

The debate has nothing to do with gay-marriage.
Gay-marriage is a smokescreen

The battle is to keep those dirty queers from adopting fine upstanding Aryan Catholic children, and preventing them from doing their communion and stuff!

PS. Usual apologies to Mike Godwin!

efb · 27-01-2014 05:21PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

Can you start s thread to discuss this rather than derail this one?

Corkfeen · 27-01-2014 05:29PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

Daith · 27-01-2014 05:30PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

That'll be up to the people of Ireland when polygamy is put to a referendum?

drunkmonkey · 27-01-2014 05:32PM

Daith wrote: »

That'll be up to the people of Ireland when polygamy is put to a referendum?

I'll be wishing I was a whole lot younger if that ever happens. Seriously though isn't there a need to legalise it as there are some religious groups breaking the law at the moment.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 05:34PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 05:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 05:37PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

Hmmm... and this useful comment conjures up visions of someone in drag, and suddenly it's looking up again

Daith · 27-01-2014 05:37PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

A penis and a vagina.

Your turn Phil!

darced · 27-01-2014 05:37PM

This post has been deleted.

seenitall · 27-01-2014 05:38PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

Ah no, not inferior. Never inferior, and don't you dare impute that on this level-headed and just poster. He already stated on the thread he sees gay unions as equal.

Just not equal enough to be able to marry.

Daith · 27-01-2014 05:39PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or they get silenced by Iona......check?

Nodin · 27-01-2014 05:41PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

No phill, you brought these things up, so you can explain them

What have you got against the gays marrying phill?

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

_Redzer_ · 27-01-2014 05:42PM

No

darced wrote: »

Gay rights being compared to the civil rights movement...check

Nobody allowed a different opinion....check

Nodin asking the same question over and over again....check

polygamy....check

Anybody for incest???

Usual list of proven homophobes in thread including yourself... check

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 05:43PM

No

Nodin wrote: »

What have you got against the gays marrying phill?

I don't have anything against the gays marrying Phill... but we're going to need to change the law to allow it on both counts: gay marriage and polygamy (cos that's 'gays' with a plural form 's').

floggg · 27-01-2014 05:52PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is the proper thing to do. Open discussion, democracy, it's like a real country again

No, it's not really. Minority rights should never be put to a public vote.

Equality is something that should be guaranteed by the State, not given at the whim of a majority.

Differential treatment should only be permitted where there are objectively justifiable reasons for doing so.

In this case, there are no objectively justifiable and evidence based reasons for discriminating against same sex couples.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 05:53PM

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind.

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

Corkfeen · 27-01-2014 05:54PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

My irony alarms are deafening...

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind.

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

How will same sex couples marrying negatively affect anyone? If you have no proof of negative effects, we can conclude you've been engaging in hyperbole whenever you discuss this topic.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 05:56PM

floggg wrote: »

Equality is something that should be guaranteed by the State, not given at the whim of a majority.

Now were back to the conspiracy argument................

No-one is trying keep rights from you.

eyescreamcone · 27-01-2014 05:57PM

No

seenitall wrote: »

Ah no, not inferior. Never inferior, and don't you dare impute that on this level-headed and just poster. He already stated on the thread he sees gay unions as equal.

Just not equal enough to be able to marry.

...and not equal enough to adopt!!!

Friend Computer · 27-01-2014 05:57PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Now were back to the conspiracy argument................

No-one is trying keep rights from you.

Well you seem pretty dead-set against gay marriage, so... yeah, we can count you, at least.

Nodin · 27-01-2014 06:00PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind. .

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

_Redzer_ · 27-01-2014 06:03PM

No

Nodin wrote: »

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?

No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

He never does have an argument. He'll call foul and run off claiming to be the victim in a minute. Like always.

equivariant · 27-01-2014 06:04PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.
There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

Rubbish. Of course it is homophobic.

Analogy: Could you say that there are people that don't believe in voting rights for women due to the institution of voting as being only for men (historically it was), but don't have a problem with women being allowed to do other stuff. And then say that such people are not sexist?

You don't get away with homophobia/sexism/racism just by being spectactularly misinformed.

This "institution of marriage" claptrap is just smoke and mirrors.

floggg · 27-01-2014 06:06PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

Sorry, but I don't want a separate water fountain to drink from.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 06:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?

No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

So your hatred of polygamy is justified? Oh right........

Its growing Nodin. As you well know.

It’s more than a little ironic that Utah, which was forced to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as a condition for statehood, has been thrust into the role of traditional marriage’s champion by two pivotal cases involving same-sex couples and polygamy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/29/utah-prepares-to-fight-federal-court-rulings-on-ga/#ixzz2rcTDwjYo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 06:08PM

equivariant wrote: »

Rubbish. Of course it is homophobic.

Analogy: Could you say that there are people that don't believe in voting rights for women due to the institution of voting as being only for men (historically it was), but don't have a problem with women being allowed to do other stuff. And then say that such people are not sexist?

You don't get away with homophobia/sexism/racism just by being spectactularly misinformed.

This "institution of marriage" claptrap is just smoke and mirrors.

And the gay people who oppose gay marriage are also homophobic?

Right...........:rolleyes:

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 06:09PM

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't want a separate water fountain to drink from.

Then don't ask for one!

Nodin · 27-01-2014 06:09PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

So your hatred of polygamy is justified? Oh right........

What? I've no problem with polygamy.

Why is it you can't actually explain your objection to gay marriage phill? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you - who should be arguing a case - are unable to do so?

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments