Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

david75 · 28-01-2014 02:30AM

No

That was cool

If America can make such a forthright demonstration it's only a matter of time before we follow.
We should on our own merits but with Iona knuckle draggers hanging around it'll be a while

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 03:07AM

eorpach wrote: »

Right Phil Ewinn, lets discuss:

For any society or system to function effectively, there has to be checks and balances that protect the rights of the minority. It is for this reason that where there is marriage, there needs to be divorce; where there is a Church, there needs to be a State, where there is an Executive, there needs to be an independent Judiciary, and so on. History is littered with "proof" that minority interests cannot (and should not) be subjugated by the majority. To do so sows the seeds of discontentment that ultimately results in societal upheaval. That much, is, incontrovertible historical fact.

Take your example of marriage working so well for so long Phil Ewinn; why then does every nation on Earth (bar the Holy See and the Philippines) make provision for its dissolution (divorce), including Ireland?

By your token, should the minority Irish population in the majority British State have simply accepted that the Act of Union should be retained, on the basis that the (British) majority considered (from their historical perspective) that the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland "worked" ?? I'm sure if you could ask anybody in Ireland touched by the Famine, they've had felt differently...

The simple fact is that the majority always believes that any system which is constituted in such a way as to be deferential to a majority "works"; until there comes a time when it doesn't. Contrast:
Whites and Slaves

Landowners with the Vote against Tenants without the Vote

Universal Suffrage if you're male vs Democratic exclusion if you're not,

Full-participation in society if you're able-bodied vs lesser participation if you're disabled.

All of the above are examples of "arrangements" which existed for centuries, did they "work"? Should we, the "majority" revert to them???

Consider, by analogy:

You (or a dependent of yours) is physically disabled, and you (or that dependent) are legally denied some of the opportunities that your sibling, (or your sibling's child) take for granted, e.g. full participation in education. Would you be so accepting of the status quo, then? After all, it is only in the past 20 years in this country that this State has actively sought to integrate special-needs children with their able-bodied counterparts in the classroom - we separated physically-disabled children from society by putting them into "special" schools for long enough, should we rollback to that??

My basic point is, every society needs to promote and cherish the position of the minority. It is the hallmark of an enlightened society, and it enriches us all.

Finally, as to your assumption that legislation would be sufficient. Might I ask, do you have any legal training?

The simple fact is that legislation is not a sufficient guarantor of rights under Ireland's parliamentary democratic system, since legislation is ALWAYS to be interpreted by the Courts in conformance with the 1937 Constitution and what the Courts consider to be the prevailing public morality. Add to that the fact that legislation can be changed by any future parliamentary majority; the Constitution cannot. For these facts alone, only a Constitutional amendment stating the clear will of the Irish People is a sufficient legal guarantee for the minority disenfranchised by the prevailing system of marriage, i.e. gay people.

You have the comfort of being a part of a majority in this society on this issue, Phil Ewinn, which puts an added onus on you to consider the perspective of the minority, not to dismiss it. Please do so sincerely when you go to the Ballot Box; do not be so dismissive as to blithely point at "the centuries" and walk away. If you intend to be a sincere and mature participant in democratic society, please behave like one.

(Sorry for such a long post folks, but some people in the majority need the position of the minority spelt out in really tedious detail in order to grasp why the majority-situation is really not a sufficient position in the first place.)

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 03:09AM

david75 wrote: »

That was cool
If America can make such a forthright demonstration it's only a matter of time before we follow.
We should on our own merits but with Iona knuckle draggers hanging around it'll be a while

America has been a rollercoaster for same sex legislation. I definately don't want that. We should decide once. Unlike the Americans

Nodin · 28-01-2014 03:16AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

It will extend marriage to gay people. Whats supposed to be wrong with that phill?

Shakti · 28-01-2014 03:20AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

"And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes"

eorpach · 28-01-2014 03:22AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

Well I'm sorry if my answer above was too long for you. But the explanation and re-assurance that you so evidently seek is NOT going to come from sound bytes.

Read my explanation above, and this time:

Consider how any of: the abolition of slavery, the extension of universal suffrage, or the advancement of the rights of the disabled, has bettered our world today.

Now, imagine an Ireland with the inverse of each of those.

I realise that you are perhaps too old to grasp first-hand the enrichment brought to society by the last one - co-education of able-bodied and disabled students - best you go away and talk to anyone under 20 for some insight into how much the tapestry of their education was bettered by that sea change, in order to grasp how poorer yours was for the absence of it. And its evident to me that yours was poorer for that; since its in the classroom that most people have their first introduction to the plight of the minority in our world.

The majority rarely listens to being "told" things, Phil Ewinn - life's greatest lessons aren't just about reading, but also about experiencing; hence the wisdom in the old adage, "You actually have to go through something to understand it".

efb · 28-01-2014 03:28AM

No

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.

The only bullying I have read is your attack on men as being all potential paedophiles.

K-9 · 28-01-2014 04:06AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

Society is made up of many different minorities, I believe this proposal betters the lot of the gay minority in society without detracting from majority rights. You'll probably come back with "but marriage has worked for centuries", yep, I don't see how gay marriage affects that in anyway.

Nobody will force the Catholic Church to marry gay couples, the church might have a minority opinion on this subject, but if the Church was forced to marry gay couples, I'd see that as an infringement on one minority (the Church) by another (those wanting gay marriage).

Thankfully we do not have that scenario. Catholics can get married, and gay marriage will not lessen their marriage vows in anyway.

amdublin · 28-01-2014 07:36AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

Does it have to better society? Why not it will become equal for all who don't have something at the moment. And the same as ever for people who do.

Actually whoa, that sounds better! How does that sound to you Phil?

Corkfeen · 28-01-2014 08:23AM

No

amdublin wrote: »

Does it have to better society? Why not it will become equal for all who don't have something at the moment. And the same as ever for people who do.

Actually whoa, that sounds better! How does that sound to you Phil?

Careful now, you might get added to the ignore list for stating facts.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 09:44AM

eorpach wrote: »

Well I'm sorry if my answer above was too long for you. But the explanation and re-assurance that you so evidently seek is NOT going to come from sound bytes.

Read my explanation above, and this time:

Consider how any of: the abolition of slavery, the extension of universal suffrage, or the advancement of the rights of the disabled, has bettered our world today.

Now, imagine an Ireland with the inverse of each of those.

I realise that you are perhaps too old to grasp first-hand the enrichment brought to society by the last one - co-education of able-bodied and disabled students - best you go away and talk to anyone under 20 for some insight into how much the tapestry of their education was bettered by that sea change, in order to grasp how poorer yours was for the absence of it. And its evident to me that yours was poorer for that; since its in the classroom that most people have their first introduction to the plight of the minority in our world.

The majority rarely listens to being "told" things, Phil Ewinn - life's greatest lessons aren't just about reading, but also about experiencing; hence the wisdom in the old adage, "You actually have to go through something to understand it".

Now you're comparing apples and oranges. You're asking me to change marriage. Not solve world poverty or something. As I already stated the rights issue can be solved by introducing civil partnership legislation. This will afford same sex couples the same rights and very definately more rights than some married fathers have! Even though they are "protected" by the constitution.
See how this works in real life?

Everyone has rights. The next generation have rights and entitlements too. Its on our watch that these changes will or will not be made. I'd like to hand the next generation a better society. But you haven't explained to me how that is going to happen. How changing a foundation of society will benefit anyone in the long run.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 09:50AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

I know and i find it down right offensive that we have other far less serious issues dominating the social/political sphere,I genuinely dont know how this issue has been overlooked and neglected for so long.

Fathers are committing suicide down to these laws,but im hoping legeslation for gay marriage will force the governments hand on this.

Rubbish.

Provide proofs of these fathers topping themselves due to lack of get marriage.rather stupid people considering they have civil partnerships, and frankly, may not be in the right stable mind to be involved in a chord life or getting married.suicidal because they don't get what they want? Rather childish.

Th gay marriage issue is no where near the priority list o many Irish people. There are far more important issues at stake. It is only important tithe Labour Party and chums as it is th only provision tha they will offer the country. Labour will be in a very weak position after May when it gets trounced in the local elections. FG , if they wish, can bide their time an keep pushing the referendum date back.

Fathers? Seriously from reading this and other posts, it is evident that few people understand the legal position of fathers to their child

Gay marriage will have no bearing on that issue. Even if a man has a gay marriage, it won't effect his relationship with a child from a previous hetro relationship.rightly the other married man, won't have a day in that child life.it is not his place as the child has both parents.

Daith · 28-01-2014 09:51AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I already stated the rights issue can be solved by introducing civil partnership legislation.

They already did. They didn't solve the rights issue.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

How changing a foundation of society will benefit anyone in the long run.

It will benefit LGBT people who can't get married based on their sexuality.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 10:02AM

walrusgumble wrote: »

Rubbish.

Provide proofs of these fathers topping themselves due to lack of get marriage.rather stupid people considering they have civil partnerships, and frankly, may not be in the right stable mind to be involved in a chord life or getting married.suicidal because they don't get what they want? Rather childish.

Th gay marriage issue is no where near the priority list o many Irish people. There are far more important issues at stake. It is only important tithe Labour Party and chums as it is th only provision tha they will offer the country. Labour will be in a very weak position after May when it gets trounced in the local elections. FG , if they wish, can bide their time an keep pushing the referendum date back.

Fathers? Seriously from reading this and other posts, it is evident that few people understand the legal position of fathers to their child

Gay marriage will have no bearing on that issue. Even if a man has a gay marriage, it won't effect his relationship with a child from a previous hetro relationship.rightly the other married man, won't have a day in that child life.it is not his place as the child has both parents.

Can someone remove this filth please, before someone reads it?

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 10:05AM

Daith wrote: »

They already did. They didn't solve the rights issue.

It will benefit LGBT people who can't get married based on their sexuality.

Looking again at the legislation again vs constitutional change.

I'm asking how that will positively effect society, not just one small minority. Change equals better is not always true.

Sarky · 28-01-2014 10:07AM

No

Look, we know you just don't like it Phill. But that won't hold up in any serious discussion. Do you have any other reasons that might?

Daith · 28-01-2014 10:09AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Looking again at the legislation again vs constitutional change.

There doesn't have to be a constitutional change. Marriage is not defined in our constitution.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'm asking how that will positively effect society, not just one small minority. Change equals better is not always true.

Ah so we can never win with you Phill? We're just a small minority and therefore shouldn't need the same rights as anyone else yes?

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 10:10AM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

Im not pushed on this matter,but i will vote in favour,I find it disgraceful that the governments wasting money on a vote though,surely it can be pushed through without one.

Just remember ''Gay community'' single fathers support you so in the future you can return the favour.

The reason that there is a vote to change the referendum is because we have to ask ourselves, who is the Constitutional Family. This family is the married family. The married family unit gets priority over all other family units. They enjoy many things like privacy as a family unit (of course everyone has individual rights), they enjoyed economic advantages too. The Married family is man + woman. This is the only family unit that enjoys Constitutional recognition (of course ECHR does not distinguish between married and unmarried couples)

The issue of the definition of marriage is at stake. It is accepted that the Constitutional definition of marriage, as set out by decades of court judgments, in Ireland and elsewhere, is Man + Woman. The Courts recently refused to accept the argument that the Constitution could be reinterepreted "as a living document" (one of many Constitutional Intrepretation Methods , not the only one) so that the word "marriage" could include gays. This was partly due to a recognition that contrary to arguments made, there was little world offical recognition of gay marriage at the time and it was beyond the control of the Courts

The reason the Government rightly felt that a referendum was due, could be a legal one. However, some people can make interesting arguments to put that in doubt. However, without doubt is the fact that due to the longstanding mindset of what a marriage is, due to the fact that only an idiot would swear on "opinion polls" from liberal groups as gossel, it was best that this matter went to the people

No party , bar Labour, made gay marriage an issue, never mind a central issue in their pre election manifesto. No party meaningfully discussed it. Why? Fear of loosing votes. No party has the mandate to change the law (unless they went to the people at election)

Hence, the need for a Referendum.

The only people who whinge about a Referendum on , in their view important issues, as a waste of money , are those who fear that this gay marriage will be rejected; and those who accept that votes at the ballot box are superior to opinion polls.

The idea of "pushing" through this one, is disguisting. The reality is clear. In Ireland , pushing through legislation is utterly flawed. Little meaningful discussion is made. Debate is full of grandstanding and minority groups with far far far too much interest . Legislation is guillotined. Moreover, the media are scum and are agenda driven.

Why should politicians get to legislate without pointing out that gay marriage will be part of their manifesto at pre election stage?

floggg · 28-01-2014 10:10AM

No

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

The "yes" side haven't tried to silence anybody. They do however call out discrimination and homophobia when they see it.

The "no" side do however use legal threats to silence people.

And it's a shame that you are so indifferent. This is an issue that will be of fundamental importance to the lives of so many people - myself included.

It would be a shame that we would continue to be denied equality out of antipathy or lack of interest.

Just taking the time to vote could do an awful lot of good for an awful lot of people. It's not much to ask.

tigger123 · 28-01-2014 10:11AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Looking again at the legislation again vs constitutional change.

I'm asking how that will positively effect society, not just one small minority. Change equals better is not always true.

Phil, how does gay people getting married have a negative effect on society?

And how does it have an effect on straight people getting married?

joseph brand · 28-01-2014 10:11AM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

I hope to never have to confront one of them...I wouldn't be able to handle it to be honest.

I think you'll like appreciate this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrOscFu1y8

It's Richard Dawkins having to deal with an unreasonable person (Wendy Wright). Infuriating just isn't strong enough a word to describe her.

There's a full video, over 1 hr long, on YouTube.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 10:12AM

No

On the basis that western society seems to be following a trend of More bigoted ---> Less bigoted, I wish I had been born in 60 years instead so that the current generation of bigots had died off. The next one should be smaller.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 10:20AM

Daith wrote: »

There doesn't have to be a constitutional change. Marriage is not defined in our constitution.

Ah so we can never win with you Phill? We're just a small minority and therefore shouldn't need the same rights as anyone else yes?

Is it that you can't read or won't read?

Daith · 28-01-2014 10:21AM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Is it that you can't read or won't read?

Well one positive effect on society is that I won't have to read your views anymore.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-01-2014 10:22AM

No

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

On the basis that western society seems to be following a trend of More bigoted ---> Less bigoted, I wish I had been born in 60 years instead so that the current generation of bigots had died off. The next one should be smaller.

They'll probably still shout plenty loud though.

Still waiting for Phil to enlighten us as to his actual problem with gay marriage, or how the institution of marriage for straight people is in anyway devalued or degraded by letting gay people marry.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 10:22AM

Daith wrote: »

There doesn't have to be a constitutional change. Marriage is not defined in our constitution.

It is indirectly defined. The accepted mindset and historical understanding of the word "marriage", (the word being used in Article 41), is man + woman. The reason that there is no sub paragraph setting out what a "marriage" is , is because to everyone, it was obvious that a marriage was man + woman. Times are now changing

The Courts have refuse to redefine the word, "marriage" and the Government , for political reasons, really don't have the mandidate to unilaterially change it without going to the people

Due to the difference in the treatment of a married family and other family units , especially where children are involved , as per Article 42, means that there is a need to confirm what a marriage is.

Daith wrote: »

Ah so we can never win with you Phill? We're just a small minority and therefore shouldn't need the same rights as anyone else yes?

Ah, poor little you

No rights are absolute. Whether you are the minority or the majority,bar the right to life and to be free of torture etc, there are few rights that are enjoyed by EVERYONE

It is trite to say we are all the same. That is utter nonsense.

Marriage, in Ireland 1600 onwards was never open to people of the same sex , nor was it open to a man and other blood relatives, nor a man and his goat (contrary to popular belief in Leitrim) In either case, all of these groups are "family units"

Daith · 28-01-2014 10:24AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

It is indirectly defined. The acceptable mindset and historical understanding of the word "marriage", which is stated in Article 41, is man + woman.

It's not defined at all.

It was interpreted by Judges who specified that is not up to them to provide legislation.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 10:25AM

No

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

They'll probably still shout plenty loud though.

Still waiting for Phil to enlighten us as to his actual problem with gay marriage, or how the institution of marriage for straight people is in anyway devalued or degraded by letting gay people marry.

You'll never get an answer. I've been over this stomping ground before on Boards and there's no resolution. When someone holds views with no rational basis, of course they're never going to be able to verbalize their reasons.

Bigots are rarely honest enough to say "I just hate the cunts!"

NTMK · 28-01-2014 10:26AM

No

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

On the basis that western society seems to be following a trend of More bigoted ---> Less bigoted, I wish I had been born in 60 years instead so that the current generation of bigots had died off. The next one should be smaller.

They get louder as their numbers get smaller unfortunately

floggg · 28-01-2014 10:29AM

No

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.

With me?

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.

With me still?

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.

I'm going to take the bait here - just so you'll have nothing to hide behind.

1. Why extend it? Because excluding a group from something without a rational and objectively justifiable reason is unfair, discriminatory and unjust.

The argument that "it was fine up to this" doesn't cut it for a number of reasons. Firstly, a maintenance of the status quo is not a good reason to deny equality or to continue an injustice. Otherwise no civil rights advances would ever be made. Was the fact that intra-racial marriage worked well for those allowed to marry a good reason to continue to deny inter-racial couples the right to marry?

Secondly, as has been stated over and over again, marriage as we know it is less than 100 years old. Previously it was a property transaction, and was based on patriarchy. The modern romantic partnership type marriage is a new phenomenon, so your "tradition" based argument is a nonsense.

2. There are countless differences between monogamous marriage, whether between same and opposite sex couples, and polygamous marriage. The two are not comparable.

They should not be linked or equated.

Even from the public and fiscal policy perspective, there are a multitude of differences - e.g. Tax implications, inheritance rights, pensions, custody.

The two are not comparable or equivalent.

And there is no readily apparent discrimination in allowing monogamous but not polygamous marriage as there are a multitude of objectively justifiable reasons for treating the two types of relationships differently as a matter of law.

There are no such objectively justifiable reasons for discriminating between same and opposite sex couples.

Moreover, no significant number of Irish people are calling for its introduction - except for people who want to use it as a smokescreen for the marriage equality issue. Not that they actually want it.

Proponents of marriage equality have put their case forward and put it very well.

If and when polygamists want to put theirs forward, we will discuss it.

3. Fathers rights is something I would like to see action taken on but a separate issue.

Now,, how about you come up with a rational reason for objecting to marriage equality.

And something actually to do with marriage equality and not another red herring.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments