Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iona vs Panti

1…2223252728…82

Comments

  • #722
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That gives some indications of possible homophobia, not anymore than this in my opinion. He is giving his opinion about marriage and the gay lobby; not gay people per se.

    It's hardly conclusive. Is this really the best evidence of such an awful accusation?

    What John Waters says has an affect on real peoples lives, not just some lobby group. It's is to forget we are talking about real peoples lives when its ones lobby group against another.

    He is writing on a national paper, about real peoples lives, and while you might consider that as a small throw away comment a lesbian couple in a loving relationship rasing children will not. Because he is talking about their lives and saying their relationship good enough for marriage and criticising there ability as parents...and he is saying this to the whole nation. Its hurtful to every lesbian couple in a relationship, to the children they may have. What about the young gay person trying to come to terms with their sexuality, what does that say to them about what society thinks about them, their future relationships and ability to love? These things are internalised and can be hurtful.

    If we feel what is being said about us, discussed about us, debated about us on the national media on a regular basis as being homophobic then it probably is, and we have a right to say it and bring it up as part of the discussion, without out being shut down and told we are being hysterical.

    You don't have to be beaten up or spat on or be called ****** to experience homophobia. It can happen in the most subtle of ways but still have a big impact on our lives and our rights.


  • #723
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I was hoping the extra pages since this morning would be entertaining, nuanced debate, but it was mostly just Brown Bomber :(


  • #724
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I would just say the law hasn't even been given an opportunity to be an ass.

    They allegedly came to a private settlement.
    We have no idea whether this would stand up in an Irish court or not.

    So I'm reserving my judgement on the legal system.

    The fact that media organisations cave in at the slightest hint of a defamation suit tells you all you need to know.

    I seem to be in a minority on this one but to me the issue is about freedom of expression. The freedom of Panti to call John Waters a raving homophobe (which he didn't as far as I'm concerned) if that is his belief. The freedom of John Waters to critique the gay lobby (once he isn't calling for gays to be beaten up - which he hasn't).


  • #725
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    What John Waters says has an affect on real peoples lives, not just some lobby group. It's is to forget we are talking about real peoples lives when its ones lobby group against another.

    He is writing on a national paper, about real peoples lives, and while you might consider that as a small throw away comment a lesbian couple in a loving relationship rasing children will not. Because he is talking about their lives and saying their relationship good enough for marriage and criticising there ability as parents...and he is saying this to the whole nation. Its hurtful to every lesbian couple in a relationship, to the children they may have. What about the young gay person trying to come to terms with their sexuality, what does that say to them about what society thinks about them, their future relationships and ability to love? These things are internalised and can be hurtful.

    If we feel what is being said about us, discussed about us, debated about us on the national media on a regular basis as being homophobic then it probably is, and we have a right to say it and bring it up as part of the discussion, without out being shut down and told we are being hysterical.

    You don't have to be beaten up or spat on or be called ****** to experience homophobia. It can happen in the most subtle of ways but still have a big impact on our lives and our rights.

    To me this looks like special pleading. Sorry, but heterosexual couples don't get a free pass on their parenting just because some of them might get offended.


  • #726
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    I never said that it was.
    Actually you did, since all he has said is that gay couples "wanting" orphans doesn't supercede placing these orphans in what he considers the best possible homes.

    Again, how is this even close to being homophobic?
    SW wrote: »
    why are you dismissing what I've given as my reason?
    This is your reason. It doesn't work. Least of all to justify branding an individual for their opinion.

    "he is homophobic because he actively campaigns against gay adoption because he feels that man and woman is best for everyone."

    That doesn't make any sense. How can having the genuinely held opinion that "man and woman is best for everyone the adopted child" homophobic?

    It would make sense if you were saying - "he is homophobic because he actively campaigns against gay adoption because ... he hates gays for being gay".

    Now we both know that he hasn't said a single word against gays. There is not a single indication that he hates gays. His whole speech concerns the fate of orphaned children from his perspective as an orphaned child.

    His position is logical from his perspective.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    porsche959 wrote: »
    To me this looks like special pleading. Sorry, but heterosexual couples don't get a free pass on their parenting just because some of them might get offended.

    Maybe you should head over to SpecSavers?

    Nobody is suggesting that any parents get a 'free pass' - not sure where/how you come to that?


  • #728
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense. How can having the genuinely held opinion that "man and woman is best for everyone the adopted child" homophobic?

    How can you not notice that anyone holding a bias towards the 'betterness' of a 'man and woman' parenting model, is exactly the problem - the automatic assumption that heterosexual couple parenting is 'obviously' a sensible and indeed the most 'logical' option. Therein is the homophobia, if you're in anyway at all able to use actual logic and not just apply hegemonic thinking.


  • #729
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    porsche959 wrote: »
    To me this looks like special pleading. Sorry, but heterosexual couples don't get a free pass on their parenting just because some of them might get offended.

    Huh? I wasn't suggesting homosexuals get a free pass of their parenting but that when we are judged as a whole on our ability as parents, ability to form relationship, ability to love, to us that feels like an attack and is fair to call it homophobia...whatever your "legitimate" reasons behind it might be.


  • #730
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,176 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    [QUOTE=Brown Bomber;88798822
    "he is homophobic because he actively campaigns against gay adoption because he feels that man and woman is best for everyone."

    That doesn't make any sense. How can having the genuinely held opinion that "man and woman is best for everyone the adopted child" homophobic?
    [/QUOTE]

    Because there is no evidence to support the view that "man/woman" is best. Claiming that same sex parents are unfit parents in spite of evidence to the contrary is homophobic. It's giving in to prejudices. How many children of same sex parents have you encountered?


  • #731
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I really can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp, BB.

    The whole point is that homophobia is subtle, is sneaks under the radar.

    He says"mammy & daddy is where kids should be placed". He's not saying give that first preference rather he wants gay couples excluded entirely.

    Studies show kids raised by same sex couples fair as well as other adopted kids.

    So exactly how is it logical if it flies in the face of current data?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #732
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    What John Waters says has an affect on real peoples lives, not just some lobby group. It's is to forget we are talking about real peoples lives when its ones lobby group against another.

    He is writing on a national paper, about real peoples lives, and while you might consider that as a small throw away comment a lesbian couple in a loving relationship rasing children will not. Because he is talking about their lives and saying their relationship good enough for marriage and criticising there ability as parents...and he is saying this to the whole nation. Its hurtful to every lesbian couple in a relationship, to the children they may have. What about the young gay person trying to come to terms with their sexuality, what does that say to them about what society thinks about them, their future relationships and ability to love? These things are internalised and can be hurtful.

    If we feel what is being said about us, discussed about us, debated about us on the national media on a regular basis as being homophobic then it probably is, and we have a right to say it and bring it up as part of the discussion, without out being shut down and told we are being hysterical.

    You don't have to be beaten up or spat on or be called ****** to experience homophobia. It can happen in the most subtle of ways but still have a big impact on our lives and our rights.

    Let me tell you I am in 100% agreement with you on this. I absolutely condemn Waters' derogatory turn of phrasein this incident. My point is that taken in isolation it is not enough to brand an individual a "homophobe" to a nation.

    I have made these exact comments of the spreading of hatred and negative stereotypes leading to discrimination and violence against the victims. Not so long ago it was socially acceptable to hold prejudices against homosexuals. That is no longer the case. Homosexuals have been replaced by Muslims as the minority it's "okay" to be prejudiced against.

    What is really strange is when I have been making precisely the same point as you on this forum of how this negative stereotyping effects real peoples lives the posters of this forum reject it for Muslims but accept it for gays. Really strange...


  • #733
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    I really can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp, BB.

    The whole point is that homophobia is subtle, is sneaks under the radar.

    He says"mammy & daddy is where kids should be placed". He's not saying give that first preference rather he wants gay couples excluded entirely.

    Studies show kids raised by same sex couples fair as well as other adopted kids.

    So exactly how is it logical if it flies in the face of current data?
    I didn't say it was logical. I said it was logical from his perspective. Big difference. None involve "homophobia".


  • #734
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    AerynSun wrote: »
    How can you not notice that anyone holding a bias towards the 'betterness' of a 'man and woman' parenting model, is exactly the problem - the automatic assumption that heterosexual couple parenting is 'obviously' a sensible and indeed the most 'logical' option. Therein is the homophobia, if you're in anyway at all able to use actual logic and not just apply hegemonic thinking.
    If I was a kid with no parents set to be adopted into a family I would much prefer to be adopted by a mother and a father than a gay couple just to make it a little easier to fit in. My wife was adopted from Chile into a small Swedish town. She is mixed-race so she was one of two "black" people in the entire town full of blue eyed and blonde children. She was already "different" being a different colour and being adopted and was bullied quite badly, having two mommy's or two daddy's would have made it even worse.


  • #735
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I didn't say it was logical. I said it was logical from his perspective. Big difference. None involve "homophobia".

    BB, i asked you for an example of a logical reason for opposing marriage equality. Why did give an example you don't even view as logical?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #736
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If I was a kid with no parents set to be adopted into a family I would much prefer to be adopted by a mother and a father than a gay couple just to make it a little easier to fit in. My wife was adopted from Chile into a small Swedish town. She is mixed-race so she was one of two "black" people in the entire town full of blue eyed and blonde children. She was already "different" being a different colour and being adopted and was bullied quite badly, having two mommy's or two daddy's would have made it even worse.

    So because we know that life for minorities and oppressed people is horrible, we should best avoid those people and situations, for the sake of fitting in better with the dominant culture? Because that would be the easier option? Rather than challenge the status quo and speak up on behalf of the people who are getting short shrift from ignorant bullies?


  • #737
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Let me tell you I am in 100% agreement with you on this. I absolutely condemn Waters' derogatory turn of phrasein this incident. My point is that taken in isolation it is not enough to brand an individual a "homophobe" to a nation.

    Well, how many strikes does he get?

    I've no problem considering the view expressed to be homophobic.

    Does that make him homophobic? IMO, if he still believes that viewpoint, then...yes. It does.

    I don't think anyone would be arguing he wasn't being anti-semitic or racist if we replaced 'gay' with 'jewish' or 'black' in his comments. Those kinds of comments, accusations of a group wanting to destroy the fabric of a society, are some of the most powerfully prejudicial and dangerous you can make about a minority, and bring an unfortunate echo of past campaigns against certain minorities.


  • #738
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    BB, i asked you for an example of a logical reason for opposing marriage equality. Why did give an example you don't even view as logical?

    No. I am afraid you are mistaken. Please see this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88793719&postcount=676


  • #739
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Well, how many strikes does he get?

    I've no problem considering the view expressed to be homophobic.

    Does that make him homophobic? IMO, if he still believes that viewpoint, then...yes. It does.

    I don't think anyone would be arguing he wasn't being anti-semitic or racist if we replaced 'gay' with 'jewish' or 'black' in his comments. Those kinds of comments, accusations of a group wanting to destroy the fabric of a society, are some of the most powerfully prejudicial and dangerous you can make about a minority, and bring an unfortunate echo of past campaigns against certain minorities.

    We have crossed wires here. I was talking about his Lesbians "playing house" crack.


  • #740
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    We have crossed wires here. I was talking about his Lesbians "playing house" crack.

    So his Lesbians "playing house" crack isn't enough to have him branded a homophobe to the nation? I'd say it's more than enough.


  • #741
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    AerynSun wrote: »
    So because we know that life for minorities and oppressed people is horrible, we should best avoid those people and situations, for the sake of fitting in better with the dominant culture? Because that would be the easier option? Rather than challenge the status quo and speak up on behalf of the people who are getting short shrift from ignorant bullies?
    No. Fight your own battles without putting innocent children on the front line of the battle.

    Did Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus and leave a black child sitting at the front?


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Let me tell you I am in 100% agreement with you on this. I absolutely condemn Waters' derogatory turn of phrasein this incident. My point is that taken in isolation it is not enough to brand an individual a "homophobe" to a nation.

    I have made these exact comments of the spreading of hatred and negative stereotypes leading to discrimination and violence against the victims. Not so long ago it was socially acceptable to hold prejudices against homosexuals. That is no longer the case. Homosexuals have been replaced by Muslims as the minority it's "okay" to be prejudiced against.

    What is really strange is when I have been making precisely the same point as you on this forum of how this negative stereotyping effects real peoples lives the posters of this forum reject it for Muslims but accept it for gays. Really strange...

    Fair enough, but what John Waters said is not an isolated incident, i've been offended by more than a few of his articles. Also, in a way i agree with what you are saing. That comment alone is not enough to brand someone a homophobe. If a friend or an acquaintance said that to me personally as a passing comment or joke i would not take much notice. But John writes for a paper. He put a lot of thought in what he was saying and said it in a public forum and then tried to justify it so in that instance I think it is fair to call him a homophobe, even if it was a stand alone comment.

    Now I can't comment on what others have said about Muslims cause I haven't read the whole thread but I certainly agree that Muslims are victims of a lot prejudice in our society and are fast becoming the new scapegoats throughout Europe and the world and is not something I agree with or would ever take part in.


  • #743
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. Fight your own battles without putting innocent children on the front line of the battle.

    Did Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus and leave a black child sitting at the front?

    I guarantee you that if a kid gets two loving parents, and the support of a caring community... they will know that it's okay to have two moms or two dads... and kids teasing or bullying them in the playground because of it? Would be unpleasant, sure...but hopefully the rest of the enlightened community in which that family lives will take the little bully children aside and have a quiet word with them about how it's not nice to make fun of other children for any reason.


  • #744
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    We have crossed wires here. I was talking about his Lesbians "playing house" crack.

    Oh sorry, I did backtrack a bit through the thread to try and find the quote but assumed ultimately we must be talking about his 'gay people just want to destroy marriage' comment. Because I thought it was his most infamous.

    So I guess that's comment number 2...

    As for your comment about the difficulties of bullying and children of gay couples...you'll forgive me if I direct you to Panti:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpHzoXg9HE&t=169


  • #745
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. I am afraid you are mistaken. Please see this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88793719&postcount=676

    And we've established that neither of us view it as logical. It's my contention that illogical discrimination of homosexuals is homophobic. Do you agree or disagree?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #746
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If I was a kid with no parents set to be adopted into a family I would much prefer to be adopted by a mother and a father than a gay couple just to make it a little easier to fit in. My wife was adopted from Chile into a small Swedish town. She is mixed-race so she was one of two "black" people in the entire town full of blue eyed and blonde children. She was already "different" being a different colour and being adopted and was bullied quite badly, having two mommy's or two daddy's would have made it even worse.

    You have to be careful with this...kids get bullied for so many reasons. Bullying is a societal problem and we should deal with it as such and not punish those that are potential victims of bullying.

    Earlier you mentioned Muslims, if a Muslim couple wanted to adopt a child should they be stopped because that child would potentially face bullying and prejudice throughout his/her life, arguably worse than the child of gay parents.


  • #747
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Brown Bomber wrote:
    No. Fight your own battles without putting innocent children on the front line of the battle.

    Did Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus and leave a black child sitting at the front?

    You're invoking Rosa Parks, but I'm pretty sure she - herself of mixed descent - would have been more than a little annoyed with arguments about the children of mixed race couples and bullying being used as weapons against mixed race marriage, as they were at the time.

    And here we are, again, with the same logic being applied to gay couples and marriage and their children.

    The fact is that, anyway, kids are already out there with gay parents. What dignity are we affording them by painting their families as lesser? I remember during divorce debates, the conservative side would lament how kids could be bullied because their parents were divorced and unable to say their parents were married. Such little of that concern now for the kids of gay parents, who aren't some hypothetical entity that will come into being with the passing of marriage equality, but who exist now, today, and always will. Such little concern for their dignity from that side of the debate now, for the fact that their parents aren't even allowed to marry, even if they wanted. Not specifically addressing you Brown Bomber, but it always annoys me when I see commentators pulling 'won't someone think of the children?' when they seem to be happy to leave in a legal limbo the kids who'd actually be affected by marriage equality.


  • #748
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    And we've established that neither of us view it as logical. It's my contention that illogical discrimination of homosexuals is homophobic. Do you agree or disagree?
    Well that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. There are illogical reasons reasons that can be homophobic and there can be illogical reasons that aren't. They are just based on faulty logic. It's not homophobic to be wrong.


  • #749
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    You have to be careful with this...kids get bullied for so many reasons. Bullying is a societal problem and we should deal with it as such and not punish those that are potential victims of bullying.

    Earlier you mentioned Muslims, if a Muslim couple wanted to adopt a child should they be stopped because that child would potentially face bullying and prejudice throughout his/her life, arguably worse than the child of gay parents.
    I wasn't using as a reason for gay peoples to not be allowed to adopt. It was just my personal opinion on my preference which is not to be read as a reflection on the gay community but on the bigots outside of it.


  • #750
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Well that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. There are illogical reasons reasons that can be homophobic and there can be illogical reasons that aren't. They are just based on faulty logic. It's not homophobic to be wrong.

    I'm taking about illogical discrimination. So the fuy in the video, homophobic or not?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #751
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I wasn't using as a reason for gay peoples to not be allowed to adopt. It was just my personal opinion on my preference which is not to be read as a reflection on the gay community but on the bigots outside of it.

    Oh okay fair enough, apologies I actually misread what you said.


Advertisement