Cydoniac wrote: » A lot of people are quite against the likes of gay men holding hands and kissing because it makes them feel sick apparently... (I don't mention women because while its still put in the same regard, people seem to have way less of a problem with it. I have seen lesbian couples many times on Dame St in evening time and nobody seems to throw any disgusting looks. Have two men and suddenly...) On a related note, RTE have put themselves in an awful position by bending to Iona's will so readily. Shows how easily they can be manipulated, and that is very worrying.
Corkfeen wrote: » Imagine if they simply didn't pander to those with such an issue. It really is one of those things that is required as a part of progress.
Cydoniac wrote: » It was John Waters this time, next time it could be Breda O Brien petitoning a piece out of the Times, and so on. Never underestimate the level of influence these guys get; if you give them an inch, they will go a mile.
george_lucas wrote: » conservative voices are pretty rare in irish media circles , its important that a sizeable proportion of the public are represented on the airwaves
Cydoniac wrote: » I think it's important to hear everyone's view on the matter, be it tasteful or distasteful, as long as it carries in some boundaries of self respect. We're currently in a situation where people like John Waters, Brenda Power, etc are free to make whatever remarks about an issue without any resistance (with groups like Iona getting unprecedented showtime), while someone like Rory O Neill who defends his views and carries a balanced counter-argument is immediately blacked out because someone shouted wolf. I think something like that should have RTE very worried to be not seen as biased, as their decisions in particular can massively affect the outcome of people's opinions about certain topics (Leo Varadkar blamed RTE for having an overly liberal bias during the abortion discussions on Prime Time, for example)
george_lucas wrote: » many people would share leo varadkars views on rte , I wouldn't limit that accusation to the abortion debate either
Cydoniac wrote: » Do you see the point I am making though? A lot of people will ride their opinion on media outlets, and RTE should be giving both sides a fair discussion. The censorship attacks on Rory O Neill had no backing and RTE showed a degree of spinelessness by being so quick to apologise on Iona's behalf (because let's not have any misconceptions here, it was primarily Iona who had an issue with that segment, hence the 4 letters) and then apologise for the God Hour tweet. It was a panic reaction really, no rationale. How is someone like Rory O Neill going to be taken seriously to the average person at home not really clued in on the subject? "Oh, he was censored, so he must have said something wrong"
george_lucas wrote: » I have no clue who rory o neill is , I never heard of him before this thread I don't think this is a big issue either way or that it will influence the gay marriage referendum next year I predict the referendum will pass but I imagine it will be along the lines of 52 - 48 %
Cydoniac wrote: » You should probably do some research then. He's a pretty important figure in this argument and for gay rights here, and hosts Pride along with doing a slew of other things. It is a big issue, and what RTE did could easily sway a vote, which is why I think it was irresponsible. Hard to predict how this will go...hoping it passes myself, and then people will realise the world didn't collapse into hell.
george_lucas wrote: » a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives
marienbad wrote: » Do I need to remind you it is a closed ballot .How can someone be embarrassed ??
efb wrote: » the yes side aren't censoring the No side!!
whats the point wrote: » OHH yes they are! Who on the no side on this thread alone, has not been labeled as homophobic? And have their opinion dismissed and laughed at.
efb wrote: » thats not censoring, it pulling apart of facile arguments
Phill Ewinn wrote: » They are. Thats the problem. Dispite the remarks on the opening page of the thread moderators have insisted on letting abuse, insulting language and degrading comments from one side ruin what should be an interesting discussion. Bullying and name calling is a form of censorship. Its putting people off talking about the subject. Being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic.
mickstupp wrote: » I thought, through the entire thread, it's been more like a consistent demand for a single decent rational argument against. The No side seems to me to be relying on bunch of rubbish masquerading as arguments. "I don't like it. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't approve. It's not traditional. I find it disgusting. And they're my opinions and THEY'RE VALID JUST BECAUSE!" Then there's the Iona Institute who don't understand the idea of a separation of church and state, despite the bible itself saying the two should be separate. I don't think religious belief should be a factor in a discussion that may involve changing the constitution. Opinions are dismissed and laughed at generally when they have no solid basis in reason. I've yet to see a decent rational opinion as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Nodin wrote: » Why are you against gay marriage Phill? Please explain.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » I asked why we should change it when the system we have works, and has been proven to work for centuries. I then went on to contextualise the statement by saying that same sex partnership legislation would cover the rights issue. .
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Also. I argued that if we're going to have a referendum on marriage equality, then lets have it. Lets include polygamy as it is more popular than gay marriage. .
Phill Ewinn wrote: » As a sideline argument posters but forward the very important issue of fathers rights which are currently being ignored by the state. Any new legislation needs to take into account these rights as a matter of urgency.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » I asked you questions earlier on on the subject which you ignored or evaded. Why would I answer your questions?
Nodin wrote: » Marriage is being extended, not changed. Irrelevant and a diversion. Irrelevant and a diversion
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Marriage is being changed nodin. Thats why were having a referendum :rolleyes: Still time wasting and evasive. This is the discussion we are having. Don't like it. Don't post. Simples.
