Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 01:50PM

penguin88 wrote: »

Is opposing same-sex marriage not discriminating against gay people on the basis of their sexuality?

No.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 01:51PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

No.

On what basis are they being discriminated against then?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 01:52PM

floggg wrote: »

the fact that rte got it wrong on that doesn't mean they should pay out every time a defamation action is launched against it.

nobody is defending on that case - it was an outrageous piece of irresponsible journalism.

But RTE's lawyers might have looked for evidence of homophobia agaiunst those wishing to sue and could find nothing to stand up in a court of law, so paid up rather than costing themselves a lot more.

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:52PM

No

hedgehog2 wrote: »

They are allowed live together these days,there was a time this was not the case.
They walk openly among us,have there own bars and scene.
Why the big feckin deal over a piece of paper,getting ones knickers in a twist will only add misery to ones life.
Just get on with it

Exactly, why the big deal over a piece of paper?

Let us have it and be done with it.

Kurtosis · 02-02-2014 01:52PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

No.

Ok, so how is opposing same-sex marriage not discriminating against gay people on the basis of their sexuality?

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 01:53PM

No

Sarky wrote: »

I kinda miss Actor. He was always good for a hysterical, ill-informed rant on sodomy and the evils of homosexuality. Totally unafraid to nail his ugly, homophobic colours to the mast.

This wishy-washy 'I'm not homophobic, but...' stuff is just irritating and half-arsed.

The I'm not homophobic butt, any relation to the I'm not racist butt I wonder: http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/notracist2.png

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:54PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

But RTE's lawyers might have looked for evidence of homophobia agaiunst those wishing to sue and could find nothing to stand up in a court of law, so paid up rather than costing themselves a lot more.

Within a week? And before proceedings were issued? My hole.

And there is plenty to go around.

Fair opinion would even then still be available.

A pay out so quickly was taken on practical, not legal, grounds.

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 01:56PM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Do you disagree or is lol the extent of your ability to retort?

I'm laughing that you are stating water is wet and the Pope is Catholic.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 01:56PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

On what basis are they being discriminated against then?

This whole marriage thing is not discrimination. We can all choose to feel discriminated against, it doesn't mean one actually is.

I am not a fan of marriage, but I think it is a good for two people who plan to have children together and for the child to have their mother and father committed together for their child(ren).
That is my personal experience.

Otherwise I don't see the need for marriage.

It wasn't me! · 02-02-2014 01:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

No.

But the sole reason they can't get married is because of their sexuality. Therefore they are differentiated in terms of their rights by their sexuality. That is descrimination. Saying it's not doesn't change that.

For all of those who oppose it by saying that the relationship is different for whatever reason (ability to procreate naturally or whatever the reason is), and that therefore there's no inherent descrimination in differentiating between them, ask yourself this: If the situation were that homosexual relationships were the ones that enjoyed tax arrangement benefits, inheritance rights and equal parental rights, and heterosexual couples were differentiated from homosexual ones by not having those rights, would it still be right to differentiate them on the basis that they're not the same?

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:58PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Which would make a referendum on SSM impossible.

How exactly?

An accusation of homophobia doesn't preclude anybody commenting further.

What it does do is to force an examination of the speakers motives and beliefs. A speaker with honourable motives and beliefs would have nothing to fear from that discussion.

And do you know what is so outrageous about this - in every marriage equality or LGBT rights debate up to this point, LGBT people have had to defend themselves from far worse than an accusation of homophobia - including the suggestion by some, including yourself, that same sex marriage could be used to facilitate peadophilia.

When faced with truly outrageous slurs like that we defend ourselves, and make our case.

And yet we are the bad ones for saying your motives for restricting our rights as a matter of law and denying our relationship equal legal status and protection might stem from prejudice and homophobia?

Filibuster · 02-02-2014 01:59PM

floggg wrote: »

Within a week? And before proceedings were issued? My hole.

And there is plenty to go around.

Fair opinion would even then still be available.

A pay out so quickly was taken on practical, not legal, grounds.

John Waters abused his position and RTE have now drawn the line and lost their impartiality.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 02:01PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

This whole marriage thing is not discrimination. We can all choose to feel discriminated against, it doesn't mean one actually is.

I am not a fan of marriage, but I think it is a good for two people who plan to have children together and for the child to have their mother and father committed together for their child(ren).
That is my personal experience.

Otherwise I don't see the need for marriage.

So it's discrimination based on the presupposition that the couple in question won't be having children rather than sexuality?

Do you think straight couples who don't plan on having children or are incapable of having children should be discriminated against too?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 02:02PM

floggg wrote: »

Within a week? And before proceedings were issued? My hole.

And there is plenty to go around.

Fair opinion would even then still be available.

A pay out so quickly was taken on practical, not legal, grounds.

It would be a costly case for RTE to lose, and given the comments were left unchallenged on the night, RTE would have lost in a court case.

If you were going to be taken to court and knew you were in the wrong and were going to be facing another court case after a previous embarrassing case, and knew you could settle before it was all aired in a court, I think you would try and settle before proceedings were launched.

RTE were in the wrong, there was no one there to challenge the views of Panti, and RTE allowed the views go unchallenged.
RTE left themselves in a no win situation.

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 02:03PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

They did by not dis-associating themselves on the night from the comments of Panti.
They allowed their TV service as a vehicle to accuse people

Have you you actually read what Panti said?

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:03PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

This whole marriage thing is not discrimination. We can all choose to feel discriminated against, it doesn't mean one actually is.

I am not a fan of marriage, but I think it is a good for two people who plan to have children together and for the child to have their mother and father committed together for their child(ren).
That is my personal experience.

Otherwise I don't see the need for marriage.

You know gay marriage won't mean ripping children away from their parents.

for children with same sex parents, having their mother and father in the picture isn't really an option.

So what is denying same sex marriage going to achieve?

Unless of course you want to discourage same sex partners from raising children in the first place?

Perhaps you might clarify if that is the basis for your belief?

But if so, you might tell us why, and address for completeness the fax that all research in the area shows that same sex parents are just as capable parents as straight couples.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 02:05PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

So it's discrimination based on the presupposition that the couple in question won't be having children rather than sexuality?

Do you think straight couples who don't plan on having children or are incapable of having children should be discriminated against too?

Marriage is not about discrimination. If it was so great more and more people would get married rather than living together.
It has tax benefits, inheritance benefits, child benefits, but it is the fault of the state that their version of marriage is a sham linked to finance and entitlements rather than love.

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 02:06PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The state broadcaster is for everyone, not to push personal views.

And? We get David Quinns personal views on a regular basus.

hedgehog2 · 02-02-2014 02:07PM

Sure that wont be embarrassing for the kids at all

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:07PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It would be a costly case for RTE to lose, and given the comments were left unchallenged on the night, RTE would have lost in a court case.

If you were going to be taken to court and knew you were in the wrong and were going to be facing another court case after a previous embarrassing case, and knew you could settle before it was all aired in a court, I think you would try and settle before proceedings were launched.

RTE were in the wrong, there was no one there to challenge the views of Panti, and RTE allowed the views go unchallenged.
RTE left themselves in a no win situation.

Nope. the fact that they were unchallenged or not has not relevance under defamation law.

the question is whether the defences of fair opinion or truth could have been established. many barristers and legal professionals believe it could have been.

obviously that's a matter of opinion but for RTE to roll over so quickly - and to pay out people not even named - suggests that this was not a decision taken on legal grounds.

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:07PM

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Have you you actually read what Panti said?

Does anybody have the link to the video?

I've read it a couple of times but never seen it live.

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:08PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Marriage is not about discrimination. If it was so great more and more people would get married rather than living together.
It has tax benefits, inheritance benefits, child benefits, but it is the fault of the state that their version of marriage is a sham linked to finance and entitlements rather than love.

Marriage is not about discrimination.

Excluding people from the legal institution of marriage on the grounds of sexual orientation is discrimination.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 02:09PM

floggg wrote: »

You know gay marriage won't mean ripping children away from their parents.

for children with same sex parents, having their mother and father in the picture isn't really an option.

So what is denying same sex marriage going to achieve?

Unless of course you want to discourage same sex partners from raising children in the first place?

Perhaps you might clarify if that is the basis for your belief?

But if so, you might tell us why, and address for completeness the fax that all research in the area shows that same sex parents are just as capable parents as straight couples.

You are the one mentioning children being ripped away not me, you know....

No change leaves the status quo, and the state would be better off offering a referendum to abolish marriage rather than linking marriage with state rights.

Should single people cry discrimination because married people get extra benefits?

For studies the pool of research is small.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 02:10PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Marriage is not about discrimination. If it was so great more and more people would get married rather than living together.
It has tax benefits, inheritance benefits, child benefits, but it is the fault of the state that their version of marriage is a sham linked to finance and entitlements rather than love.

That's nice, but you didn't answer the question.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 02:15PM

floggg wrote: »

Marriage is not about discrimination.

Excluding people from the legal institution of marriage on the grounds of sexual orientation is discrimination.

So argue for polygamy then too.

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:16PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

You are the one mentioning children being ripped away not me, you know....

No change leaves the status quo, and the state would be better off offering a referendum to abolish marriage rather than linking marriage with state rights.

Should single people cry discrimination because married people get extra benefits?

For studies the pool of research is small.

Then can you explain how you think a desire for a child to be raised by their natural mother and father where possible is justification for prohibiting same sex marriage?

How does same sex marriage jeopardise that arrangement?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 02:17PM

floggg wrote: »

Nope. the fact that they were unchallenged or not has not relevance under defamation law.

the question is whether the defences of fair opinion or truth could have been established. many barristers and legal professionals believe it could have been.

obviously that's a matter of opinion but for RTE to roll over so quickly - and to pay out people not even named - suggests that this was not a decision taken on legal grounds.

Accusing people of being homophobic for not supporting SSM is not fair comment, however much one chooses to believe it is.

Skylinehead · 02-02-2014 02:19PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Accusing people of being homophobic for not supporting SSM is not fair comment, however much one chooses to believe it is.

It's a fair comment if they can't say why they don't support SSM other than vague nothing answers like "It'll tear society apart", "they're taking our thing!", "think of the children" (despite children actually being entirely irrelevant to the debate).

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:20PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

So argue for polygamy then too.

Sorry, but I don't like red herrings.

Entirely different argument, entirely different reasons for and against.

The attempt to link the two is just to sidetrack the argument. A similar effort is used when debating inter-racial marriage in the States.

There is no necessary link between the two. You can determine that as a matter of public policy it is right and proper to legalise same sex marriage without being required to decide on the issue of polygamy.

if you want to argue against marriage equality, do so on the merits of the issue. don't try and distract from the issue by linking it to a separate issue.

floggg · 02-02-2014 02:25PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Accusing people of being homophobic for not supporting SSM is not fair comment, however much one chooses to believe it is.

Yes, it very much is.

no matter how uncomfortable it makes the alleged homophobe.

And you should seriously watch this for an understanding of the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0o6ZDQrKc

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments