Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb · 28-01-2014 12:09PM

No

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?

What will you do if it's a carried?

walrusgumble · 28-01-2014 12:10PM

efb wrote: »

I presume we would continue to fight for equality

So, why can't those who won't accept the "new brave world" decide not to accept the new regime and fight to change it?

Wouldn't you not just accept the will of the people as you expect the opposition if gay marriage did come in?

(of course you would, naturally, seeking to continue the fight - just responding to the bland remark made earlier)

Mod: User banned

Sarky · 28-01-2014 12:11PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Welcome to the ignore list.

Achievement unlocked! \o/

efb · 28-01-2014 12:11PM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, why can't those who won't accept the "new brave world" decide not to accept the new regime and fight to change it?

Wouldn't you not just accept the will of the people as you expect the opposition if gay marriage did come in?

(of course you would, naturally, seeking to continue the fight - just responding to the bland remark made earlier)

Am I stopping you? Were debating it aren't we???

Skylinehead · 28-01-2014 12:13PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This isn't helping.

Like your polygamy argument?

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:16PM

floggg wrote: »

Well if that's a change for the better, than why the **** not?

Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.

david75 · 28-01-2014 12:17PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.

Because you aren't making any sense.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:17PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.

We are discussing it. Why is giving marriage to more people harmful?

Nobody's changing marriage.

Corkfeen · 28-01-2014 12:17PM

No

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?

I'm surely not the only one who is completely oblivious to what Phil believes will be the negative societal impact of same sex couples marrying will be? Any chance of putting his reasoning in bullet point format so it's comprehensible?

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:18PM

No

walrusgumble wrote: »

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)

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

So essentially we are more or less agreed on the basics of the case (though I misread your point on living document), but reached different conclusions and i'm as thick as two planks or whatever. Nice

And you're right - they did put more weight on the historic position than I indicated. I hadn't read it in two years.

It still doesn't undermine the view held by myself and a lot of other people (legal and political) that while the constitutional does not necessarily require marriage equality, it certainly does not preclude it.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:19PM

Daith wrote: »

Nobody's changing marriage.

We talked about this earlier. Yes, we are changing marriage. That's why were having a referendum.

I'm defo not going over the first point again.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 12:20PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.

Does " hard to get to any kind of discussion" in this context mean "hard to get people to casually agree with my baseless opinions"?

Because there's a pretty lively discussion going on here.

efb · 28-01-2014 12:20PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We talked about this earlier. Yes, we are changing marriage. That's why were having a referendum.

I'm defo not going over the first point again.

A referendum changes the constitution

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:21PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Does " hard to get to any kind of discussion" in this context mean "hard to get people to casually agree with my baseless opinions"?

Because there's a pretty lively discussion going on here.

If you believe they're baseless then why respond? Let me tell you why. Because they are not baseless.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:21PM

efb wrote: »

A referendum changes the constitution

10/10

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 12:23PM

I'll come back to this in fifty pages.

Seems to have only dawned on people that were having a referendum? I dunno.

Annasopra · 28-01-2014 12:23PM

No

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''.

Seriously Phil - get a grip

Equality means equality - that means for example some people will under the social welfare system be poorer off because they are now treated as a couple.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 12:24PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

If you believe they're baseless then why respond? Let me tell you why. Because they are not baseless.

It's nice of you to inform me of my own reasons for doing things. Unfortunately you're fairly wide of the mark.

Let me tell you why: Because I enjoy trying to get an insight into the minds of people who so firmly hold to irrational arguments.

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:24PM

No

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.

What are we, birds?

The feathers are clearly for our boas

Annasopra · 28-01-2014 12:25PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Welcome to the ignore list.

Must be a long list now

efb · 28-01-2014 12:25PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

10/10

Gold star?

mickstupp · 28-01-2014 12:26PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

10/10

A referendum changes the constitution. It doesn't change marriage because marriage is not the constitution. You know fine well that's what efb meant. Two gay people getting married has precisely zero effect on any heterosexual marriage, hence the opinion that marriage is not being changed, we only want the privilege of marriage extended to gay people.

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:26PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We talked about this earlier. Yes, we are changing marriage. That's why were having a referendum.

The referendum will actually define marriage for the first time in our constitution.

efb · 28-01-2014 12:27PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'll come back to this in fifty pages.

Seems to have only dawned on people that were having a referendum? I dunno.

See ya later look forward to you repeating vague generalisations

lazygal · 28-01-2014 12:28PM

No

If the gays can get married will that mean my husband and I won't be good parents to our two children anymore?

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:29PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.

AAARGGGHHH.

You refuse to discuss that. You refuse to say whether you think it would be a negative change or impact on the majority and to give your reasons why.

Can you put up or shut up please?

You say you want a discussion, so discuss?

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 12:29PM

No

lazygal wrote: »

If the gays can get married will that mean my husband and I won't be good parents to our two children anymore?

Yes. It will also mean your marriage to your husband will be rendered a sham.

floggg · 28-01-2014 12:30PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm surely not the only one who is completely oblivious to what Phil believes will be the negative societal impact of same sex couples marrying will be? Any chance of putting his reasoning in bullet point format so it's comprehensible?

Yes

Daith · 28-01-2014 12:30PM

No

lazygal wrote: »

If the gays can get married will that mean my husband and I won't be good parents to our two children anymore?

No, we will undermine your marriage causing you to get a divorce and adopt your two babies. #gayagenda

Sarky · 28-01-2014 12:33PM

No

floggg wrote: »

What are we, birds?

The feathers are clearly for our boas

Nests, boas, as long as the feathers are for something fabulous.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments