Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 10:30AM

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.

The only screaming and shouting is coming from the anti hetrosexual / gay marriage supporters who everyday create new threads on gays, shout down oppenents of gay marriage as bigots or homophobes and puke out a lot of pretenious or evidence that is not universally accepted, and use emotion of "suicide" or bad feelings , to get their point across, not to mention the laughable misguided idea that "everyone is the same". There is nothing more delusional, dishonest and disengenious than a proponent of gay marriage to compare it's position with the black struggle and ban on interracial marriage. I wonder would they be so quick if they were aware of the anti gay views of many of the black leaders of the day?

The gays still haven't pointed out how they will somehow lose / have less dignity because they can't marry but can enjoy legal protections under Civil Partnership

joseph brand · 28-01-2014 10:30AM

No

It would seem that Phill Ewinn is in the minority here and showing little sympathy for another minority.

Poor Phill. Getting ganged up on here, just because he belongs to a bygone era. Lamenting over the old Ireland where everyone was gay and merry and you could leave your front door wide open at night. / tear rolls down cheek

joseph brand · 28-01-2014 10:32AM

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.

Haven't you heard? We'll ALL have to get gay married. Phill gave us all the 'facts'.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 10:37AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

The gays still haven't pointed out how they will somehow lose / have less dignity because they can't marry but can enjoy legal protections under Civil Partnership

Are you under the impression that Civil Partnership offers the same legal status as marriage?

Just to be clear, gay people and their straight supporters are not hungrily chasing access to the word 'Marriage'. But I'm sure you already knew that.

I have no doubt that if you made Civil Partnership legally identical to marriage, but without changing the name, same sex couples would be quite satisfied.

So, maybe you can come up with another excuse?

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 10:38AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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

The reason why it will not be removed, is because, what was stated is actually accurate and CAN be proven with facts and evidence. If Labour loose influence, bye bye the chance to vote. FG members WILL NOT tolerate been pushed around by the minority partner on an issue that they are ALREADY split on. They are already sore over the abortion issue (which was unavoidable)

The fact that you can't and refuse to back up the statement that I responded to with any suggestions or evidence says it all. The fact that you clearly do not understand the legal issues (no shame there, so long as you don't come out with the nonsense that you did come out with) says it all. You honestly think people put gay marriage over issues like water charges or economic matters (gay marriage funny enough will have some taxation implications) as the main priorities? Oh Dear. I am not saying that is a good or right thing, I am simply saying that for most people, they would laugh at Gilmore's grand statement about what is the most important 21st Century issue

Any attempt to remove that post will be down to you. Any attempt to remove that post is a clear sign that the gay supporters refuse to accept reality, or discussion or legitimate opposition. It is censoring. But, I except nothing else from the "liberal" agenda.

floggg · 28-01-2014 10:38AM

No

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.)

Actually I think legislation would be sufficient, and once marriage was defined as between a man and a woman the courts would be extremely slow to allow a reversal IMO.

As a gay person I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of my rights, and the validity and status of my relationship being voted on and subjective to approval by the public.

My preference would be for a court decision on the issue (and there are constitutional arguments for marriage equality) as I would rather it be proved I am equal to my brother and sisters, rather then being given equality at the discretion of others.

rubadub · 28-01-2014 10:45AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. .

Links234 wrote: »

You know, I've heard a lot of people say that, but I still haven't heard of any arguments against marriage equality that are not stemming from homophobia.

I have, this one

P_1 wrote: »

IMO marriage is just a tax break these days.

I don't believe heterosexual married couples deserve some of the tax breaks they get, so do not think 2 wrongs make a right.

I have heard of the situation being rightly described as an unfair tax on single people.

The objection is nothing to do with sexuality, if up until now it was illegal for blonde couples to marry I would not want them given the right to marry.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 10:53AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Are you under the impression that Civil Partnership offers the same legal status as marriage?

Just to be clear, gay people and their straight supporters are not hungrily chasing access to the word 'Marriage'. But I'm sure you already knew that.

I have no doubt that if you made Civil Partnership legally identical to marriage, but without changing the name, same sex couples would be quite satisfied.

So, maybe you can come up with another excuse?

Civil Partnership offers comparable legal and economic rights .The essentials. Any refusal to accept that is delusional and dishonest.

The position of children, concerns the gay and their relationship with their child and parent from a previous hetro relationship. That position is no different to any other hetro's whether unmarried or married (to the other parent).

. These couples play an utterly different role to that of a MAJORITY of hetrosexual couples have the potential of playing. That difference must be maintained. Why should a gay couple enjoy better taxation advantage than a de facto couple with children?

There may be avenues in the future to extend the provisions of civil marriage future. While closely related, but a separate issue (well in a way , not really as Article 41 goes hand in hand with Article 42, but still, separate) , if the child issue is addressed, then calls for gay marriage would be moot.Gay marriage is a glorified vanity affair

The second paragraph is utter nonsense Every discussion board pops up new threads each day on gay marriage. If any attempt of any discussion outlets to give balance ie let the anti gay marriage people speak, out comes the labels (and defamatory comments) of homophobe and bigot. It is their way to keep the discussion alive, which is fine, but don't go pretending that this is not happening.

Corkfeen · 28-01-2014 10:56AM

No

Treating a minority as equal is in itself beneficial to society. Just because it only affects small minority in society, does not mean that it should not be done. However treating a group as different and using the different fountain mentality is an inversion of equality for society as it fosters an attitude of inferiority towards a group as they are apparently less deserving of being recognised as the same. I'm apparently incapable of reading though, so ignore everything I have said above.

efb · 28-01-2014 10:57AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Civil Partnership offers comparable legal and economic rights .The essentials. Any refusal to accept that is delusional and dishonest.

The position of children, concerns the gay and their relationship with their child and parent from a previous hetro relationship. That position is no different to any other hetro's whether unmarried or married (to the other parent).

. These couples play an utterly different role to that of a MAJORITY of hetrosexual couples have the potential of playing. That difference must be maintained. Why should a gay couple enjoy better taxation advantage than a de facto couple with children?

There may be avenues in the future to extend the provisions of civil marriage future. While closely related, but a separate issue (well in a way , not really as Article 41 goes hand in hand with Article 42, but still, separate) , if the child issue is addressed, then calls for gay marriage would be moot.Gay marriage is a glorified vanity affair

The second paragraph is utter nonsense Every discussion board pops up new threads each day on gay marriage. If any attempt of any discussion outlets to give balance ie let the anti gay marriage people speak, out comes the labels (and defamatory comments) of homophobe and bigot. It is their way to keep the discussion alive, which is fine, but don't go pretending that this is not happening.

Debate the points then and calling marraige equality for gay people a "
glorified vanity affair" is inflammatory and insulting and not adding anything to the discussion.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR NOT EXTENDING MARRIAGE TO GAY COUPLES???

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 11:01AM

rubadub wrote: »

I have, this one

I don't believe heterosexual married couples deserve some of the tax breaks they get, so do not think 2 wrongs make a right.

Lucky enough, few would agree with you. You evidentially don't have financial or real world responsibilities towards others to worry about.

These "some of the tax breaks", care to point out the ones that they deserve to have and those that they do not deserve to have. Explain the reasoning for this view

Do you not think that a married couple (or even de facto hetrosexual couple with children ) not play a vital role in society?

rubadub wrote: »

I have heard of the situation being rightly described as an unfair tax on single people.

Sources for this are ? Who said it?

How is it unfair? Society clearly seeks to promote the married family unit for whatever reason .

Of course, whether it is right not to include other family units such as unmarried couples with kids under Constitutional protection , like Article 8 of ECHR, is a prefectly valid and on going discussion

rubadub wrote: »

The objection is nothing to do with sexuality, if up until now it was illegal for blonde couples to marry I would not want them given the right to marry.

Eh, marriage is man + woman. Soooo, gender is an issue.

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:03AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, marriage is man + woman. Soooo, gender is an issue.

Until the people of Ireland vote next year and decide what marriage will be.

floggg · 28-01-2014 11:04AM

No

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.

How does improving the lot of a minority without affecting the position of the majority not positively effect society. Some people are better off, nobody is worse off.

Ergo, as a whole society gains.

Your position only makes (a little bit of) sense if you believe that granting marriage equality would harm or indeed impact in any way on the majority.

But as you are utterly unable to show any impact on the position of the majority then that can't be the case.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not trolling.

But if we have to break things down in any more simplified way, we're in danger of coming across as condescending and patronising.

Friend Computer · 28-01-2014 11:05AM

walrusgumble wrote: »

labels (and defamatory comments) of homophobe and bigot

Hardly defamatory if it's true.

And let's turn the tables for a second: why--without using an appeal to tradition--shouldn't gay people be allowed marry? Give one single, rational reason why not.

Penn · 28-01-2014 11:08AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, marriage is man + woman. Soooo, gender is an issue.

And a "wireless" used to be a radio.

Words change meaning regularly as dictated by societal advancements. In numerous countries worldwide, "marriage" now also includes same-sex couples.

Just because the meaning hasn't changed yet, doesn't mean it will never or should never change.

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:09AM

No

Friend Computer wrote: »

? Give one single, rational reason why not.

They can't.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 11:09AM

efb wrote: »

Debate the points then and calling marraige equality for gay people a "
glorified vanity affair" is inflammatory and insulting and not adding anything to the discussion.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR NOT EXTENDING MARRIAGE TO GAY COUPLES???

First of all, a unit of society , demanding a right that was never intended for them and shouting "homophobe" and "bigotry" on all those who oppose, is downright disrecptful to hetrosexuals.

Coming out with nonsense that everyone is the same is an insult to intelligence.

Gay couples can never be able to play the role of the majority of hetrosexual couples in society, no matter many times you click your little red shoes and shout "there is no place like home". Distinctions and different treatment is recongised and acceptable. There is no need to extend tax breaks to them, due to the role that they can play in society

You treat like for like and dislikes differently

Civil Partnership greatly cuts the legs the gay groups genuine problems. It may go further in the future. They had no real need for marriage bar shouting out "look at me". That is a reality. It is vanity and an insult to hetrosexual couples.

Will gay marriage improve gays couple's confidence of being able to go down the street of the local town , hand in hand and display public signs of affection to each other? (issue often brought up by gays in Ireland) Probably not

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:12AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

First of all, a unit of society , demanding a right that was never intended for them and shouting "homophobe" and "bigotry" on all those who oppose, is downright disrecptful to hetrosexuals.

Not if they are homophobes who view gay couples as inferior to hetrosexual couples.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 11:13AM

Daith wrote: »

They can't.

Tax breaks

Rights to children/adoption

The fact that gays are not capable or have the potential, as a family unit, of playing the same role of a majority of hetrosexual couples

Point of marriage is alot more than "love" and has an important civil factor

floggg · 28-01-2014 11:13AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

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?

I assume you're referring to the Zappone case?

If you'd read it, you'd see that marriage is not defined in the constitution at all. Irish courts have never held there to be any constitutional definition of the term.

There is common law case law defining it as man v woman but that case law is subject to the constitution and Irish legislation.

The Zappone case recognised that the Oireachtas was free to define marriage through legislation but had to date chosen to define it as one man and one woman. This definition was only introduced in 2003. It is open for the Oireachtas to redefine it to include same cases couples.

As I recall, Zappone did not refuse to accept the Constitution was a living document. Indeed, the Supreme Court has endorsed the living document interpretative approach on a number of occasions.

What the HC found was that the word "marriage" hadn't evolved sufficiently at the time to require the HC to hold it included same sex marriage.

Mind you, this decision was a number of years ago when there was maybe 6 or so countries with same sex marriage.

Now, same sex marriage is becoming a lot more common in the West, and indeed is present in varying degrees in the US, Canada, Australia (for now and only in Canberra), New Zealand, South Africa and soon the UK - countries with a similar legal system to ours. It's also present in a number of European and Latin American States.

So the HC's decision in that regard could well be different if decided today.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 11:14AM

Daith wrote: »

Not if they are homophobes who view gay couples as inferior to hetrosexual couples.

What if this inferiority is a fact or a reality? Big difference between dislike or hatred or fear and stating a fact or pointing out a reality

That fact that a hetrosexual couple actually play a vital role in society, perhaps a more important role in society and any other group, does not, neccessarily mean that gays are inferior - they just play a different role

Anyway, there are worse things than be a homophobe; liar, deluded and simple would be a few.

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:15AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Tax breaks

Rights to children/adoption

The fact that gays are not capable or have the potential, as a family unit, of playing the same role of a majority of hetrosexual couples

Point of marriage is alot more than "love" and has an important civil factor

Tax breaks are a reason not to have same sex marriage?

Gay people can adopt. Gay people raise children.

Yes they are capable.

That's not an argument

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:16AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

What if this inferiority is a fact or a reality. Big difference between dislike or hatred or fear and stating a fact or pointing out a reality

It's not a reality though.

_Redzer_ · 28-01-2014 11:16AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Tax breaks

Rights to children/adoption

The fact that gays are not capable or have the potential, as a family unit, of playing the same role of a majority of hetrosexual couples

Point of marriage is alot more than "love" and has an important civil factor

Except scientific studies say otherwise in that they are just as capable as heterosexuals at raising children.

Next point.

Friend Computer · 28-01-2014 11:17AM

walrusgumble wrote: »

Civil Partnership greatly cuts the legs the gay groups genuine problems. It may go further in the future. They had no real need for marriage bar shouting out "look at me". That is a reality. It is vanity and an insult to hetrosexual couples.

Hello, John Waters.

http://collegetribune.ie/index.php/2012/08/gay-marriage-is-a-product-of-this-bunker-mentality/ wrote:

This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 11:17AM

No

Daith wrote: »

Gay people can adopt. Gay people raise children.

Even more to the point, gay people can use sperm donors or surrogates.

I'm sure we'll be told now that this is not acceptable for same sex couples, but is just fine for straight ones.

floggg · 28-01-2014 11:18AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

There is nothing more delusional, dishonest and disengenious than a proponent of gay marriage to compare it's position with the black struggle and ban on interracial marriage. I wonder would they be so quick if they were aware of the anti gay views of many of the black leaders of the day?

What, like Bayard Rustin?

efb · 28-01-2014 11:19AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

What if this inferiority is a fact or a reality? Big difference between dislike or hatred or fear and stating a fact or pointing out a reality

That fact that a hetrosexual couple actually play a vital role in society, perhaps a more important role in society and any other group, does not, neccessarily mean that gays are inferior - they just play a different role

Anyway, there are worse things than be a homophobe; liar, deluded and simple would be a few.

How is this a fact??? Care to point it out???

efb · 28-01-2014 11:20AM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

First of all, a unit of society , demanding a right that was never intended for them and shouting "homophobe" and "bigotry" on all those who oppose, is downright disrecptful to hetrosexuals.

Coming out with nonsense that everyone is the same is an insult to intelligence.

Gay couples can never be able to play the role of the majority of hetrosexual couples in society, no matter many times you click your little red shoes and shout "there is no place like home". Distinctions and different treatment is recongised and acceptable. There is no need to extend tax breaks to them, due to the role that they can play in society

You treat like for like and dislikes differently

Civil Partnership greatly cuts the legs the gay groups genuine problems. It may go further in the future. They had no real need for marriage bar shouting out "look at me". That is a reality. It is vanity and an insult to hetrosexual couples.

Will gay marriage improve gays couple's confidence of being able to go down the street of the local town , hand in hand and display public signs of affection to each other? (issue often brought up by gays in Ireland) Probably not

Who determines what rights are available to whom???

Was the vote intended for women?

Daith · 28-01-2014 11:20AM

No

Why is this about children again? Are married hetrosexual couples required to have children?

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments