nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

david75

Phil future generations are going to look back on people with your outlook and laugh. You look ridiculous and bigoted now. Quit while you can.

Phill Ewinn

david75 wrote: »

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.

Which is why I posted what I posted several pages back.

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 not the one ''behind the times''. I'm the one quoting facts and offering dialogue.

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is why I posted what I posted several pages back.

I'm not the one ''behind the times''. I'm the one quoting facts and offering dialogue.

Have you started your polygamy thread yet? Or are you using it to derail this one?

diddlybit

floggg wrote: »

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

Adam and Yves would never have such difficulty being accepted.

There is a t-shirt slogan in here somewhere.

efb

So you don't want gay marriage equality because it challenges the status quo? That's all??? That's it???

Phill Ewinn

david75 wrote: »

Phil future generations are going to look back on people with your outlook and laugh. You look ridiculous and bigoted now. Quit while you can.

Insults and name calling. Yes, the world will look back on me as ridiculous for wasting my time on people who are so full of hate that they cant see past themselves.

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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?

It works for whom??, religious groups???

Sarky

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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

Your turn.

I would have thought everyone deserves equal rights was a pretty good reason. You must have forgotten the last time I said that. No biggie, you've done this in dozens of threads, I know it's hard to keep track...

Any reasons you've given beyond "I just don't like it" have been shredded in this and many other threads. The research doesn't agree with you, the logic doesn't agree with you, society doesn't agree with you, and by the looks of things a good 90% of this community doesn't agree with you.

Do you have anything else besides "I just don't like it"?

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Insults and name calling. Yes, the world will look back on me as ridiculous for wasting my time on people who are so full of hate that they cant see past themselves.

That's not name calling it's describing your view

walrusgumble

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:

No, and if you read what I said in all my posts, you would not be coming out with that nonsense. I made no reference to God at all. I responded to a poster saying opposition is not a "sexuality" thing. (Of course , gender and sexuality are separate)

For once, can you guys refrain from distorting what was said? The very fact that you decided to put words in my mouth highlight a red flag. You are not willing to "debate"

Phill Ewinn

efb wrote: »

So you don't want gay marriage equality because it challenges the status quo? That's all??? That's it???

lol You don't want equality at all. Your merely on here trying to feather your own nest.

Marriage equality as I said isn't the inclusion of one group over another. The clue is in the word ''equality''.

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

lol You don't want equality at all. Your merely on here trying to feather your own nest.

Marriage equality as I said isn't the inclusion of one group over another. The clue is in the word ''equality''.

You know what I want??? Why do I fight for women's rights and fathers' rights if I am neither????

Phill Ewinn

efb wrote: »

That's not name calling it's describing your view

No its name calling alright. Not owning up though. Nice pattern developing here.

walrusgumble

Sarky wrote: »

I would have thought everyone deserves equal rights was a pretty good reason. You must have forgotten the last time I said that. No biggie, you've done this in dozens of threads, I know it's hard to keep track...

Any reasons you've given beyond "I just don't like it" have been shredded in this and many other threads. The research doesn't agree with you, the logic doesn't agree with you, society doesn't agree with you, and by the looks of things a good 90% of this community doesn't agree with you.

Do you have anything else besides "I just don't like it"?

What 90% of the Community? What are you talking about

Private Opinion Polls from the media do not speak for the Community

The only poll that will count is the ballot box results, and if you think anything near 90% will say yes to gay marriage, then frankly, you and credibility do not mix and are not worth discussing with

Phill Ewinn

efb wrote: »

You know what I want??? Why do I fight for women's rights and fathers' rights if I am neither????

This isn't helping.

david75

How is wanting to make our society equal for all, 'not looking past ourselves'!?

Your logic is completely and totally backwards phil

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No its name calling alright. Not owning up though. Nice pattern developing here.

What pattern is this?

Sarky

efb wrote: »

You know what I want??? Why do I fight for women's rights and fathers' rights if I am neither????

Presumably rights for women and fathers is a cunning ruse in your master strategy to feather your own nest while destroying the fabric of society. Admit it, the gay agenda stole the pope's blood for their nefarious mission to force everyone to gay marry and give their children away to gay couples.

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This isn't helping.

Helping your facile argument?

walrusgumble

david75 wrote: »

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.

And what is society says "feck off" on this ?

Will you and people like you adapt your attitude and accept that the status quo stays?

Phill Ewinn

david75 wrote: »

How is wanting to make our society equal for all, 'not looking past ourselves'!?

Your logic is completely and totally backwards phil

Can you read? Did you read? Is there any sense to be had from you? Do you want to waste my time, because the ignore function is going to be used next time you post something like that.

efb

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No its name calling alright. Not owning up though. Nice pattern developing here.

You accused me of selfishness without evidence

Annasopra

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.

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.

That's a completely separate argument on finances and taxes

Phill Ewinn

Sarky wrote: »

Presumably rights for women and fathers is a cunning ruse in your master strategy to feather your own nest while destroying the fabric of society. Admit it, the gay agenda stole the pope's blood for their nefarious mission to force everyone to gay marry and give their children away to gay couples.

Welcome to the ignore list.

efb

walrusgumble wrote: »

And what is society says "feck off" on this ?

Will you and people like you adapt your attitude and accept that the status quo stays?

I presume we would continue to fight for equality

walrusgumble

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.

The current government has NO mandate to do so, it can't even agree amonsts itself

There ARE Constitutional implications

The reason why it is the safest option is a per your point, also democractically and politically, the smart thing to do

Sarky

walrusgumble wrote: »

What 90% of the Community? What are you talking about

Uh, the After Hours poll? You know, a reflection of the opinions of people who post in After Hours? That community?

Private Opinion Polls from the media do not speak for the Community

They do pretty well at speaking for After Hours. I'm not sure why you're trying to make such a big deal out of your lack of support here.

The only poll that will count is the ballot box results, and if you think anything near 90% will say yes to gay marriage, then frankly, you and credibility do not mix and are not worth discussing with

Quit the hysteria, your arguments are on shaky enough ground without them.
No, I don't think it'll be 90% in favour. There are still plenty of homophobic citizens who'll vote no because of the, quite frankly, abominable reasons you and Phill have been trotting out here. Homophobic groups like the Iona Institute will campaign tirelessly to lie about research, demonise gay people and sue the ever-living sh*t out of anyone who dares point out that such actions are homophobic.

david75

I'd be happy to be on your ignore list.
Stick your head in the sand all you want. It's changing around you and there's not a damn thing you or the other ignoramus knuckle draggers can do about it.

Annasopra

walrusgumble wrote: »

Sources for this are ? Who said it?

Leo Varadkar

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/leo-varadkar-is-single-and-unhappy/

floggg

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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?

There is zero point.

You haven't denied that it will benefit the minority. You also haven't denied that it will prejudice or even effect the majority.

And yet you want a further justification?

So it is all upside and no downside, but still that's not enough?

Honestly, at least other posters have some argument. i disagree with it, but at least they can point to something.

You have nothing other than "but it will change things." Well if that's a change for the better, than why the **** not?