Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Knasher · 28-01-2014 12:20pm

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.

As of right now, the poll indicates that just over 89% of the people here feel that the homophobic label applies to the attitude of the Iona Institute. 89% of the population of boards isn't gay, I'd be surprised if the number of heterosexuals ticking yes didn't far outstrip the number of homosexuals. It is therefore not disrespectful to "heterosexuals", the majority of whom seem to agree with the label being applied where it is.

joseph brand · 28-01-2014 12:20pm

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

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

Your whole argument boils down to:

"The 'lord' created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."

That's going to be a difficult point for us to debate. :rolleyes:

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:23pm

No

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?

No, I wouldn't.

I don't want a separate water fountain.

Giving a separate but equal status does nothing but create an artificial difference and for no good reason.

I don't want religious marriage but I do want the state to recognise my relationship on the same terms and as equally deserving of recognition and protection as a straight couple.

If all civil marriages become civil partnerships I'll be happy with that.

But I don't want the state to maintain an artificial divide whose only purpose is to assure heterosexual couples that are relationships aren't the same as theirs and will be marked out as different.

Religion can do what it wants but I want the State I contribute to to recognise my relationship has the value as that of my straight neighbours.

Friend Computer · 28-01-2014 12:23pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Your whole argument boils down to:

"The 'lord' created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."

That's going to be a difficult point for us to debate. :rolleyes:

Especially since Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, not Jane and Abel!

ardmacha · 28-01-2014 12:23pm

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.

Of course they are, otherwise they would have adopted a different term.
This is not about people getting something, it is about lowering the esteem of marriage, something which gay people do not want to avail of, by having marriage defined as whatever you are are having yourself.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:25pm

No

ardmacha wrote: »

This is not about people getting something, it is about lowering the esteem of marriage, something else which gay people do not want to avail of, by having marriage defined as whatever you are are having yourself.

Lowering the esteem of marriage?

So women voters meant lowering the esteem of men voting?

Interracial marriage meant lowering the esteem of white people marrying?

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:25pm

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

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.

Lol! Phil - liberal? Gay marriage supporter? Lol!

No, he just found you're offensive statements about single fathers and suicide offensive.

PS - all parties bar FG support equal marriage. And a number of high profile FG ministers and TDs do support it.

efb · 28-01-2014 12:26pm

No

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course they are, otherwise they would have adopted a different term.
This is not about people getting something, it is about lowering the esteem of marriage, something else which gay people do not want to avail of, by having marriage defined as whatever you are are having yourself.

Lowering the esteem of marriage??? How?

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 12:27pm

No

floggg wrote: »

No, I wouldn't.

I don't want a separate water fountain.

Giving a separate but equal status does nothing but create an artificial difference and for no good reason.

I don't want religious marriage but I do want the state to recognise my relationship on the same terms and as equally deserving of recognition and protection as a straight couple.

If all civil marriages become civil partnerships I'll be happy with that.

But I don't want the state to maintain an artificial divide whose only purpose is to assure heterosexual couples that are relationships aren't the same as theirs and will be marked out as different.

Religion can do what it wants but I want the State I contribute to to recognise my relationship has the value as that of my straight neighbours.

That's fair enough, and I understand that. I do, however, think it's unlikely to convince to opposition who find it hard enough to wrap their minds around the practical reasons why Civil Partnership doesn't cut it. Telling them that you want 'their' apparently special word too just gives them another bone to froth at the mouth over.

Though I suppose, that's not actually a good enough reason to back down.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:28pm

No

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Though I suppose, that's not actually a good enough reason to back down.

What's the point of backing down? Same sex marriage will come into Ireland at some stage. Hopefully next year but it will come in at some stage.

One benefit for boards will be the lack of posts about gay marriage when it does happen!

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 12:30pm

No

Daith wrote: »

What's the point of backing down? Same sex marriage will come into Ireland at some stage. Hopefully next year but it will come in at some stage.

One benefit for boards will be the lack of posts about gay marriage when it does happen!

You're right it will happen, sooner would be better than later. I'm actually embarrassed to live in a time where this is still an issue. It's one of those things we'll be telling our stunned grandchildren about.

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 12:32pm

floggg wrote: »

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.

Sweet suffering Jesus H Christ. Some posters are thicker than 4 x4's.

There is an INDIRECT definition. That Word "Marriage" is clearly stated in Article 41 and such families being the only ones that enjoy preference. Article 41 concerns the Family. There is a distinct Constitutional difference of treatment of all family units in Irish Society. Hence why the marriage issue is a big deal.

If there was no disctinction, or the family provision in Article 41 was the same as Article 8 of ECHR, then it would be hard to argue for Constitutional Referendum. Government could probably just legislate

Moreover, from a social and political point of view marriage definition has, for most part , meant man + woman.(not to say that can change)

floggg wrote: »

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

Correct, hence the referendum as the legislator don't feel confident in legislating for democratic reasons.

It was the Zappone's not the State who sought intervention from the Courts remember. Oh, and the case was a Constitutional Law Case!

floggg wrote: »

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.

Correct, and if Labour fecked off, it would probably stay that way. Alas , Conservative of governments does not neccessarily mean the voters are Conservative, hence the people demand a voice on this, by making our Constitution Confirm that gays should enjoy the same Constitutional rights as married people.

floggg wrote: »

This definition was only introduced in 2003. It is open for the Oireachtas to redefine it to include same cases couples.

Ideas on gay marriage have been surfacing a bit longer than that

floggg wrote: »

As I recall, Zappone did not refuse to accept the Constitution was a living document.

Eh, why would Zappone refuse to accept the Constitution was a livign document, that was their argument

You mean the Court? Correct, but I already pointed that out.

floggg wrote: »

Indeed, the Supreme Court has endorsed the living document interpretative approach on a number of occasions.

I stated as such in my post. Why regurgiate what I said and try and suggest that I don't understand what Zappone said. I pointed out that the said interpretation method was just one of many methods

floggg wrote: »

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.

Correct, hence that messed up the living document argument. Alas, however, the historical interpretation argument played a role too , especially when the harmonious approach was made when looking at other provisions of the Constitution

floggg wrote: »

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.

Would not bank on that ! We have different ethos and laws than Britain. Feck all of the USA have legislated , weirdly some in California "regret" it

Ash.J.Williams · 28-01-2014 12:34pm

No

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No it's not. And I am in favour of both gay and polygamous marriages. Not up to me to intervene. I bring it up because the arguments against polygamy are the same as those against gay marriage. Non traditional, non Western and not good for society. Don't see it.

No woman wants a polygamous marriage. Those relationships are a result of male dominated religious extremists.

diddlybit · 28-01-2014 12:35pm

No

Daith wrote: »

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

And then when the sky doesn't fall in or society falls apart, people will have to find something else to complain about.

Sarky · 28-01-2014 12:35pm

No

diddlybit wrote: »

And then when the sky doesn't fall in or society falls apart, people will have to find something else to complain about.

They'll probably follow the US fundies and concentrate on hating trans-gender folks.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:37pm

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

Government could probably just legislate

The Government can just legislate.

Putting it to a referendum is the safest option and would prevent countless legal challenges from certain organizations.

Links234 · 28-01-2014 12:39pm

No

Sarky wrote: »

They'll probably follow the US fundies and concentrate on hating trans-gender folks.

Possibly, but I wouldn't think anything would come of it because in terms of trans rights, Ireland is way ahead of the US in general.

diddlybit · 28-01-2014 12:41pm

No

Daith wrote: »

The Government can just legislate.

Putting it to a referendum is the safest option and would prevent countless legal challenges from certain organizations.

I welcome the referendum, but I dread t think about all the sh*te I'll have to listen to from people who think they can define my relationship better than I can.

And insinuating that somehow myself and my partner are responsible for the destruction of 'family', a danger to children, responsible for all the awful weather we've been having recently etc.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:42pm

No

diddlybit wrote: »

And insinuating that somehow myself and my partner are responsible for the destruction of 'family', a danger to children, responsible for all the awful weather we've been having recently etc.

You will be lowering the esteem of married hetrosexual couples! Stop that!

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:46pm

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

Firstly, asking for equality of status is in no way disrespectful to heterosexuals, no matter how insecure the are.

However, portraying gay people as hysterical, delicate attention seekers and comparisons to Dorothy in the wizard of oz are disrespectful.

The "child rearing argument" is no longer valid for a number of reasons:

1. Heterosexual couples can adopt as couples. There is no reason why gay people cannot also do so. In which case they deserve the same benefits and protections.

2. Heterosexuals can adopt their spouses biological children and offer them the protections and benefits of a legal child/parent relationship.

Gay couples cannot which disadvantages both the parent and child.

3. Infertile heterosexuals can marry. They are still entitled to the full benefits of marriage. Infertility does not in any way undermine or invalidate the marriage, nor deny them the rights and privileges of marriage.

4. Heterosexuals can choose not to have children. Not only does the State not penalise them for doing so, it authorises the use of contraception to facilitate them in ensuring as best they can that this does not occur.

Contraception destroyed the necessary link between sex, marriage and child birth.

And link between sex and marriage has also long since been destroyed.

If marriage was solely about child rearing, the state would make that a Central requirement of marriage.

It doesn't. It recognises that there are other benefits to marriage and offers marital benefits even where no children are produced.

What's more, even if it is viewed that child rearing was an essential part, it could make the same means of adoption available to gay couples as it does to infertile straight couples.

It already recognises that gay people can be good parents - hence single gay people can adopt and gay couples can foster.

diddlybit · 28-01-2014 12:46pm

No

Daith wrote: »

You will be lowering the esteem of married hetrosexual couples! Stop that!

Foiled! I also having a unicorn breeding plan in place and I shall release them into the wild where they will multiply and eat only topiary in the gardens of dyed-in-wool hetreosexuals.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:47pm

floggg wrote: »

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.

You want to change marriage. Societies view of marriage will be changed. Ergo the impact marriage has had on society will change. Ergo society will change.

Comprendez?

Marriage is as I said earlier is a foundation of society. And we know it works as it is. So why change?

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:48pm

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.

Are we inferior?

And do we not play a vital role in society?

And would two gay men or women raising a child not okay just as important a role?

david75 · 28-01-2014 12:48pm

No

Some of the outright ignorance and fear of these people's views.

It's simply extending the meaning to include all. What is the big problem? It's a new paradigm, not the destruction of the existing one.

How can people wanting to get married, destroy the institution of marriage??

I've yet to see any of the naysayers explain this or even answer it in any meaningful or understandable fashion at all ever.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:50pm

david75 wrote: »

Some of the outright ignorance and fear of these people's views.

It's simply extending the meaning to include all. What is the big problem? It's a new paradigm, not the destruction of the existing one.

How can people wanting to get married, destroy the institution of marriage??

I've yet to see any of the naysayers explain this or even answer it in any meaningful or understandable fashion at all ever.

Its an old paradigm. Marriage in its current form is new. And certainly new to the US.

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:51pm

No

joseph brand wrote: »

Your whole argument boils down to:

"The 'lord' created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve."

That's going to be a difficult point for us to debate. :rolleyes:

Poor Steve. If he was French, this would never be an issue.

Adam and Yves would never have such difficulty being accepted.

Sarky · 28-01-2014 12:51pm

No

Phill, you're still not rising above "I just don't like it" regarding your opposition to same-sex marriage. You know gay couples raise children just as well as straight couples. You know that polygamy, adoption and father's rights are totally separate issues thrown in here only in an attempt to muddy the waters.

So come on, why do you oppose it so much? Do you have any reason at all besides just not liking it?

david75 · 28-01-2014 12:52pm

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its an old paradigm. Marriage in its current form is new. And certainly new to the US.

By those lights, you must realise that society will always evolve.
So it's up to you and people like you to adapt your attitude and accept ts going to change whether you like it or not.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:52pm

Sarky wrote: »

So come on, why do you oppose it so much? Do you have any reason at all besides just not liking it?

I have given reasons for all things. You've given none.

Your turn.

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:53pm

No

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course they are, otherwise they would have adopted a different term.
This is not about people getting something, it is about lowering the esteem of marriage, something which gay people do not want to avail of, by having marriage defined as whatever you are are having yourself.

Really? I think that reflects more on your personality than mine if you assume your fellow man to be do petty.

And what's with all those same sex couples getting married in every jurisdiction where it's legal?

I thought we didn't want it?

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments