Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

eorpach wrote: »

The introduction of someone who has actually been on the receiving end of homophobic violence sort of stole the thunder from the smiling panellist who repeatedly cried foul about the content of her Twitter feed, huh?

Her twitter feed?

Retweeted 12 times
Duggan ‏@_Duggan_ 31m
Philips said she has she got vile messages on twitter, in fact she has 6 tweets @ her in 12 months https://twitter.com/search?q=%40Susanephilips&f=realtime … #SatNightShow
Expand

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But some people genuinely believe marriage should just be between a man and a woman, and would also be opposed to polygamy. I don't agree with them or even understand them, but if they believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, how is that homophobia? Not agreeing with interracial marriage is not about believing marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Ask yourself what's behind the believe?

It's not good enough to just say I believe this type of relationship is more special or important but I don't hate anybody in any other relationship.

The root of that belief is you think other relationships are somehow lesser.

How is that not prejudice?

And if you can't point to a single objectively justifiable reason why you think they are lesser, how is that prejudice not irrational?

Genuinely interested how you can square that away. At the end of the day they are calling for some people to be treated as less than as a matter of law.

If they can't point to a rational reason why, and they haven't yet, then it's not a simple disagreement. It is bigotry and homophobia.

Good lord, that show was awful.

The Pussy Riot interview was a farce.

The homophobia debate was fine if it weren't for the RTE/BoC's attempts to neuter the discussion.

I enjoyed Susan Phillips' apparent embarrassment/amnesia at the revelation that she opposed decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993. Perhaps she'll be similarly embarrassed in 20 years time about her stance on marriage equality.

I'm sure RTE would love to erase 'homophobia' as a word from the upcoming debates, per BoC's suggestion. Would certainly help them out with their pals at Iona Legal.

Buzz O'Neil and the other lady in the audience were right on the money though. Phillips playing the victim - 'oh can't I just have my opinion?' - while RTE and the media have for decades entertained her and her ilk disparaging gay people and full equality for gay people. When someone calls them out on it, they're the one that gets censored and shut up. Her perception of reality is a farcical twist on the real thing.

And we even got a 'some of my best friends are gay!' comment...

eorpach wrote: »

What an extraordinary letter to write. Granted, it was just 21 years ago, and as she says herself she's "not that old" as to have been around then in the first place, but Susan Phillip's attempts to rehabilitate herself on RTÉ tonight as a good-natured amiable Conservative voice are now in tatters.

That letter was vile and homophobic back then, and it remains so remains today. It just goes to show how far RTÉ had to go to the margins to find somebody willing to represent such an intolerant stance in a public debate.

Thing is if she was any bit good at PR she could have just admitted it.People's viewpoints can change over time. She could have said her angle was different now. Instead she denied it and has now lost all credibility. Not that she had much to begin with mind you but you still gotta play your cards right regardless of how the deck is stacked.

efb wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage

Not everything on that is true

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why do people keep ignoring my point that some people believe marriage should only be for a man and a woman and would be opposed to polygamy, not just same-sex marriage, on this basis?

I don't agree with this standpoint but I'm just playing devil's advocate because "homophobe" is a harsh thing to call someone and might not necessarily apply.

Let me be the first to address your devil's advocate standpoint, Femme_Fatale:

Polygamy does not distinguish based on sexuality; it distinguishes based on a practice. Polygamists are not a section of society; they are people who engage in a specific practice. By contrast, gay people are a section of society, and shall remain so with or without the validation of their love through the establishment of marriage equality.

What are we teaching future generations in Ireland if we leave to them a legacy of laws that actively discriminate against a section of society, i.e. gay people?

By retaining a difference in terms of marriage status, we tell every citizen of Ireland (now and generations-hence) that there are two forms of love in society (the greater one -straight marriage, and the lesser one - gay partnership), and we condition them into believing that that the feelings of love expressed by the majority are superior to those expressed by the minority.

That's not a morally defensible position in a democratic society.

The benefit of a more inclusive institutional legal arrangement (Constitutional equality for civil-marriage) will be a more equal and open society in Ireland, where everyone will (hopeful) be tolerated and welcomed and valued for their contribution, rather than distinguished or diminished by virtue of their sexual orientation.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But if they were also opposed to polygamy because it's not marriage between a man and a woman, why would it be homophobia rather than just believing marriage should be one particular way?

When people's rights, lives and families are at stake it's never enough to just say "that's just how I believe it should be."

An other persons equality should never be sacrificed just to accommodate another's bare beliefs.

There has to be a valid reason for unequal treatment as a matter of law.

If you advocate unequal legal treatment without an objectively justifiable reason, you are being bigoted and discriminatory.

And as has being pointed many times over polygamy and marriage equality are two very different issues. The Arguments are not the same and very different issues arise when considering both.

Quite frankly it's not the job of marriage equality advocates to distinguish the two. If a valid reason for opposition to marriage equality cannot be demonstrated then there is a prima facie case of bigotry and discrimination.

It's not necessary for us to argue for or against polygamy to prove that.

Nodin wrote: »

The withering looks of contempt at O'Connor were lovely though, in fairness.

Wish there hadn't been a language barrier between them and Phillips in the green room... Should have put some cameras in there and televised that.

Nodin wrote: »

Tommorrows indo says waters got 30k.......

The whole thing stinks. He took legal action while in the BAI (iirc), so occupying a position of dominace over RTE.

Then has the cheek to say that we should just skip the debate because no-one's interested in having one after he declined to come on an RTE debate.

laugh wrote: »

I have to give kudos to The Saturday Night Show for at least attempting to interview Pussy Riot and for having this panel.

It was a piss poor attempt so they deserve no kudos in my opinion

Stark wrote: »

What about all those lesbian couples with functioning uteri and babies the stretch marks to show for it, I mean "la la la not listening!".

fyp.