Iona vs Panti

vitani · 02-02-2014 10:02PM

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.

If I was being adopted, I'd like a rich mother and father who'd buy me my own pony and bring me to Disneyland every year.

~

The only way to make a real impact on the bullying of children with same sex parents is to make same sex parenting a normal, unremarkable occurrence. It might take another generation before that happens, but the sooner we start, the better.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 10:07PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

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.

I don't live in Ireland. I don't read the Irish press. I don't believe I've ever read a John Waters column until this thread. I am prepared to take you on your word as you seem a fair an honest person that there is a pattern to these type of degrading comments. I don't accept that opposition to gay marriage is automatic homophobia. The existence of gays who oppose gay marriage strongly supports this. I would also imagine there is a sizable number of parents of gay children, who fully support their children but at the same time value the traditional marriage. If the two Waters articles that have been linked to are the tip of the iceberg then I would suspect that people have built up this impression of Waters by reading between the lines, and they may very well be correct but you need more than this to make such a serious allegation against someone on prime time TV.

Brian Shanahan · 02-02-2014 10:12PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't make any allegations against Peter Tatchell at all, merely quoted him directly and produced documented facts of his past.

Oh haven't you?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I asked a question in the thread on the atheist "intellectual" Dawkins and his disgusting"mild " paedophilia position ". It was regarding gay activist and and co-organiser with Dawkins of the British anti-Pope protests Peter Tatchell.

He is equally if not more deranged on his views on children and sex is the "secularist of the year" for 2012. He is the creepy looking hypocrite in the green shirt.

Tatchell has a long history of gay activism and has crossed paths with pro-paedophilia organisations.

He was a leading member of the "Gay Liberation Front" which assimilated into it the "Paedophile Action For Liberation" . PAL were exposed and then dissolved.

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.co...itain-25-5-75/

They had earlier merged with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) another group of paedos Tatchell was associated with.

PIE were reportedly formed in Scotland by the humanist Ian Dunn in 1960s. Tatchell would later write Dunn's obituary.

Ian Dunn's exposure by the Sunday Mail.
http://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpr...ymail25384.jpg

Meanwhile Tatchell along with the pro-paedophilia groups allied themselves in the 70's with National Council For Civil Liberties who lobbied at the time:

This is line with Tatchell's own words in a letter published in The Guardian in 97 (in full)

Which bring us back around to Dawkins who believes in a form of "mild paedophilia".

The same Dawkins who is an "Honory Associate" at The National Secular Society, the group who honored Tatchell as the "Secularist of The Year".
http://www.secularism.org.uk/honoraryassociates.html

So what I wanted to find out is why are the secularist society honoring such a man? What his connection to Dawkins is and why don't atheist speak out against their fellow atheists in such cases?

Another prominent example is the atheist founder of NAMBLA - the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Not alone are you maligning and libelling Peter Thatchell, you're doing the same to Richard Dawkins and Ian Dunn. And thats just a single example of a myriad of posts that you have on here making false, libellous and vicious allegations against honest, decent members of society.

You are the lowest kind of low do you know that?

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 10:15PM

vitani wrote: »

If I was being adopted, I'd like a rich mother and father who'd buy me my own pony and bring me to Disneyland every year.

Funnily enough, that is what my wife got.

~

vitani wrote: »

The only way to make a real impact on the bullying of children with same sex parents is to make same sex parenting a normal, unremarkable occurrence. It might take another generation before that happens, but the sooner we start, the better.

I completely agree but I am still a little uncomfortable with the idea of involving innocent children being the broken eggs in the making of this omellete.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 10:19PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh haven't you?

Not alone are you maligning and libelling Peter Thatchell, you're doing the same to Richard Dawkins and Ian Dunn. And thats just a single example of a myriad of posts that you have on here making false, libellous and vicious allegations against honest, decent members of society.

You are the lowest kind of low do you know that?

sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Campbell_Dunn

Click on external links. You will get to an obituary written by Dunn's friend and colleague. Read it through and you will find out Dunn's affiliations. then read Tatchell's glowing obit. Then come back to me and tell me who is the lowest of the low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

oscarBravo · 02-02-2014 10:20PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't accept that opposition to gay marriage is automatic homophobia. The existence of gays who oppose gay marriage strongly supports this.

If there's a reason for opposition to marriage equality that doesn't imply homophobia, I'd love to hear it.

I would also imagine there is a sizable number of parents of gay children, who fully support their children but at the same time value the traditional marriage.

That argument is premised on the idea that "traditional marriage" is harmed by marriage equality. I've yet to see a compelling argument that this is the case.

If the two Waters articles that have been linked to are the tip of the iceberg then I would suspect that people have built up this impression of Waters by reading between the lines, and they may very well be correct but you need more than this to make such a serious allegation against someone on prime time TV.

No serious allegation was made against Waters on prime time TV. Rory spelled out in clear detail the sort of subtle homophobia he was talking about. Now, either you accept that Waters is guilty of the subtle homophobia as described in detail by Rory, or you're back to adhering to a strict dictionary definition of the word and ignoring what he actually said he meant by it.

vitani · 02-02-2014 10:28PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I completely agree but I am still a little uncomfortable with the idea of involving innocent children being the broken eggs in the making of this omellete.

They're already involved. Gay couples have been starting families together for decades.

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 10:29PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Funnily enough, that is what my wife got.
~
I completely agree but I am still a little uncomfortable with the idea of involving innocent children being the broken eggs in the making of this omellete.

what exactly is your point? Is this a subtle way of saying children will be harmed if they are raised by a gay couple?

Stark · 02-02-2014 10:32PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I completely agree but I am still a little uncomfortable with the idea of involving innocent children being the broken eggs in the making of this omellete.

Because you don't trust gay parents with children. How is that not homophobic?

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 10:34PM

Stark wrote: »

Because you don't trust gay parents with children. How is that not homophobic?

No, apparently it's not the gay parents BB doesn't trust, it's society who will nastily bully those children. So... for the sake of the children... we shouldn't give them to gay parents, to save them being bullied.

robindch · 02-02-2014 10:35PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You are the lowest kind of low do you know that?

Red-carded for that.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 10:37PM

Stark wrote: »

Because you don't trust gay parents with children. How is that not homophobic?

Woah! I never said that at all. I said that if I was the kid version of me without parents I would prefer to be raised by a nuclear family so as to not stand out and be bullied for it. I then clarified that this was not a reflection of the parenting abilities of the gay people but of bigoted attitudes that exist outside of it.

My only problem is that there is no way around this that I can see that doesn't involve children being victims of this until it evolves into a state of normalisation.

Nodin · 02-02-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Campbell_Dunn

Click on external links. You will get to an obituary written by Dunn's friend and colleague. Read it through and you will find out Dunn's affiliations. then read Tatchell's glowing obit. Then come back to me and tell me who is the lowest of the low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

You know that theres no mention of your allegations in that wiki entry? That's because they were made by one paper, and never proven in court. Weren't you the one ranting on about "innocent until proven guilty" in this very thread?

WoolyJumper · 02-02-2014 10:43PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't live in Ireland. I don't read the Irish press. I don't believe I've ever read a John Waters column until this thread. I am prepared to take you on your word as you seem a fair an honest person that there is a pattern to these type of degrading comments. I don't accept that opposition to gay marriage is automatic homophobia. The existence of gays who oppose gay marriage strongly supports this. I would also imagine there is a sizable number of parents of gay children, who fully support their children but at the same time value the traditional marriage. If the two Waters articles that have been linked to are the tip of the iceberg then I would suspect that people have built up this impression of Waters by reading between the lines, and they may very well be correct but you need more than this to make such a serious allegation against someone on prime time TV.

Well firstly i have to say, Panti didn't directly call John Waters a homophobe but I think that has been said already...and also when he defined homophhobia (a definition I and many other gay people who experience it would agree with) he was very clear about what he meant. That anyone that treats gay people differently or discriminates against them is a Homophobe. I've tried to explain as best as I could in response to you why to us we experience that as homophobia. Things like that said in a public forum have a big negative impact on individuals lives.

Now you say calling someone a homophobe is a serious allegation but not as serious or damaging (especially in the way panti defined it) as those two John Waters articles. For me reading those two articles again, im offended and angered and im someone who is lucky enough to have supportive family and friends and i am comfortable with my sexuality. Someone else who is not so lucky reading can have damaging affects on them.

As for gay people being against gay marriage supporting the idea you can be against gay marriage and not a homophobe I disagree. Like I have said to you before you can be homophobic and gay. Also valuing traditional marriage does not mean you don't value "alternative" marriages and families. I value my relationship as well as my upbringing in a traditional family.

Now I think we are always going to disagree because I should say IMO there is no good reason to oppose gay marriage. If you have taken the time to hear both sides, do some research and look at studies on children raised by gay parents (reputable studies) then the only reasonable conclusion is there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and no reason to oppose it. If after that you still do oppose it then that must be coming from a place of fear or ignorance or bigotry. Maybe homophobia is too strong a word for that depending on how you define it. (Just to clarify i was not implying you are against gay marriage)

robindch · 02-02-2014 10:44PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Rory spelled out in clear detail the sort of subtle homophobia he was talking about

He spelled it out in a whole lot more detail here, in an elegant, thoughtful and rather powerful few minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0

Quinn, Waters and the rest of them have scored a magnificent own-goal with this debacle and Panti, to say the least, has come out on top. Good on him(*).

(*) or "her" as attire may, at times, require

Stark · 02-02-2014 10:44PM

Brown Bomber wrote:

Woah! I never said that at all. I said that if I was the kid version of me without parents I would prefer to be raised by a nuclear family so as to not stand out and be bullied for it. I then clarified that this was not a reflection of the parenting abilities of the gay people but of bigoted attitudes that exist outside of it.

My only problem is that there is no way around this that I can see that doesn't involve children being victims of this until it evolves into a state of normalisation.

There are children of gay couples today who exist in legal limbo as the State considers one half of the parenting couple to be a stranger to them. How is that helpful to those children?

Gay couples have been raising children for a few decades now. There's a generation of young adults available to talk about their experiences growing up as children of LGBT parents. Their voice is being ignored in favour of "Think of the children" diatribe.

This isn't some untested hypothetical scenario. It's something real, observed, we haven't seen negative outcomes for those children yet the homophobes still fall back to "children will suffer if we let the gays have equality".

Kiwi in IE · 02-02-2014 10:56PM

John Waters has said something I entirely agree with!

Quote curtesy of the Sunday Indepenent today;

"The answer being obvious, I propose that tomorrow morning the Taoiseach should announce the introduction of an unprecedented statutory instrument whereby the constitutional requirement for a referendum on gay marriage is deemed contrary to the public interest and that gay marriage should become legal from, say, 9am on Tuesday"

Clearly the only time Mr Waters can say anything that is actually quite sensible is when he is intending to be facetious.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 10:58PM

Nodin wrote: »

You know that theres no mention of your allegations in that wiki entry? That's because they were made by one paper, and never proven in court. Weren't you the one ranting on about "innocent until proven guilty" in this very thread?

Like I said. Click on external links. There is an obituary written by Dunn's friend and colleague in the gay magazine he worked for. There is only one external link. You can't miss it.

Oh and a NSFW warning. There is a series of photos of him. One of them has him completely naked for some reason.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-02-2014 11:00PM

vitani wrote: »

<...> the sooner we start, the better.

I don't see the need for particular priority about this, more than other things. If I was to identify stuff about the Irish community where there's a division that's not easy to close, I'd suggest there's a casual racism in our culture. I'd particularly notice it when you go West of Maynooth. I don't encounter folk who've any axe to grind with Quares. But the N-word is quite common in casual conversation, and its a topic that people will spontaneously raise.

On the other hand, I did listen to Panti's coherent and precise statement at the Abbey:

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

It's a good piece, because it's so measured. But. because it's measured, and because he's very precise in acknowledging that any oppression he's encountered has been in the course of a comfortable life, I found myself thinking that, actually, what he was describing wasn't massively different to what most folk go through in life. Is there anyone who hasn't been humiliated sometime, or felt shook to the core because things turned out to be different to what you thought?

I can't understand how the gay marriage issue features in our society, as it is just so irrelevant to any problem that actually faces us collectively. I'd expect, but don't know, that the reason a referendum is on the cards is because the Labour Party has a deep need to feel its done something, anything, before getting destroyed at the next election. And Fine Gael are happy enough to let them off with a referendum that won't cost too much, and won't change anything that really matters.

robindch · 02-02-2014 11:05PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is an obituary written by Dunn's friend and colleague in the gay magazine he worked for. There is only one external link. You can't miss it. [...] There is a series of photos of him. One of them has him completely naked for some reason.

This thread is intended for discussion of Rory O'Neill and the ongoing, and widening, controversy regarding comments he made a few weeks back.

In the light of this, can you please drop this pointless discussion of Peter Thatchell and Ian Dunn, whoever he is? You've brought Thatchell up on a number of previous occasions to no obvious benefit, and your interest in pictures of naked men is similarly irrelevant.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 11:08PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Well firstly i have to say, Panti didn't directly call John Waters a homophobe but I think that has been said already...and also when he defined homophhobia (a definition I and many other gay people who experience it would agree with) he was very clear about what he meant. That anyone that treats gay people differently or discriminates against them is a Homophobe. I've tried to explain as best as I could in response to you why to us we experience that as homophobia. Things like that said in a public forum have a big negative impact on individuals lives.

Now you say calling someone a homophobe is a serious allegation but not as serious or damaging (especially in the way panti defined it) as those two John Waters articles. For me reading those two articles again, im offended and angered and im someone who is lucky enough to have supportive family and friends and i am comfortable with my sexuality. Someone else who is not so lucky reading can have damaging affects on them.

As for gay people being against gay marriage supporting the idea you can be against gay marriage and not a homophobe I disagree. Like I have said to you before you can be homophobic and gay. Also valuing traditional marriage does not mean you don't value "alternative" marriages and families. I value my relationship as well as my upbringing in a traditional family.

Now I think we are always going to disagree because I should say IMO there is no good reason to oppose gay marriage. If you have taken the time to hear both sides, do some research and look at studies on children raised by gay parents (reputable studies) then the only reasonable conclusion is there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and no reason to oppose it. If after that you still do oppose it then that must be coming from a place of fear or ignorance or bigotry. Maybe homophobia is too strong a word for that depending on how you define it. (Just to clarify i was not implying you are against gay marriage)

I think everything you have said if fair and reasonable. What is more I think it is persuasive. Despite any impression I may have given there was never too much daylight in our beliefs to begin with but I believe what you have said has closed the gap even more. I feel like you have opened my eyes a little and I thank you for that.

However. I still value the principle of the assumption of innocent until proven guilty and I need to reserve judgement on Waters and co until I can see compelling evidence.

Kiwi in IE · 02-02-2014 11:09PM

There are only two scenarios where certain types of people claim to care deeply about children;

1. Children who are being brought up by same sex parents.

2. Fetuses who are at risk of not becoming children because a woman dosn't want to be pregnant.

Actually I might give them one more;

3. Children who are at risk of not being properly indoctrinated if anyone mentions religious indoctrination being removed from state schools.

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 11:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Woah! I never said that at all. I said that if I was the kid version of me without parents I would prefer to be raised by a nuclear family so as to not stand out and be bullied for it. I then clarified that this was not a reflection of the parenting abilities of the gay people but of bigoted attitudes that exist outside of it.

My only problem is that there is no way around this that I can see that doesn't involve children being victims of this until it evolves into a state of normalisation.

right ok - let's stop black people adopting and people in wheelchairs and left handed people and protestants and red haired people because the kids will be bullied. Let's not stand upto the bullies. Let's victimise the people who want to be parents because they are black, disabled, left handed, protestants and red haired.

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 11:19PM

mango salsa wrote: »

right ok - let's stop black people adopting and people in wheelchairs and left handed people and protestants and red haired people because the kids will be bullied. Let's not stand upto the bullies. Let's victimise the people who want to be parents because they are black, disabled, left handed, protestants and red haired.

And also: people who would make their children wear Crocs or anything out of SuperDry. Those kids are definitely going to be so badly bullied. And people who would send their kid to school with any Tesco own brand foodstuffs in their lunch box. Bullying is awful, and we need to protect kids against parents that would bring humiliation down on their kids. Oh! And... Jehovah's Witnesses! Kids don't have any business walking around the neighbourhood in a suit trying to flog The Watchtower magazine!

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 11:19PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If there's a reason for opposition to marriage equality that doesn't imply homophobia, I'd love to hear it.

Here you go then. Written by a gay Irishman.
http://thickerthantalk.blogspot.se/2014/01/same-sex-marriage-anti-freedom-anti.html

oscarBravo wrote: »

That argument is premised on the idea that "traditional marriage" is harmed by marriage equality. I've yet to see a compelling argument that this is the case. No serious allegation was made against Waters on prime time TV. Rory spelled out in clear detail the sort of subtle homophobia he was talking about. Now, either you accept that Waters is guilty of the subtle homophobia as described in detail by Rory, or you're back to adhering to a strict dictionary definition of the word and ignoring what he actually said he meant by it.

Homophobia is always a serious and damaging accusation. Not only that he equated it with racism which is also always a serious and damaging allegation.

robindch · 02-02-2014 11:20PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There are only two scenarios where certain types of people claim to care deeply about children;

The usage is similar to all those countries -- now sadly reduced to but a few -- which bolster their democratic credentials by naming themselves "democratic" - The Democratic Republic of the Congo, the German Democratic Republic (GDR, DDR, former Eastern Germany), the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea). And I'm sure a few more.

Nominative determinism, the cheeky friend of Messrs Sapir and Whorf, might be a laugh a minute on News Quiz, but it does not legitimize Mr Water's homophobic and idiotic views.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-02-2014 11:22PM

mango salsa wrote: »

right ok - let's stop black people adopting and people in wheelchairs and left handed people and protestants and red haired people because the kids will be bullied. Let's not stand upto the bullies. Let's victimise the people who want to be parents because they are black, disabled, left handed, protestants and red haired.

There were only 29 non-family adoption orders granted last year, and only 87 family adoption orders. Adoptions are as rare as hens' teeth, so the issue just doesn't need this degree of scrutiny or comment.

http://aai.gov.ie/attachments/article/32/Notice%20-%202013%20Annual%20Stats%20website.pdf

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 02-02-2014 11:23PM

robindch wrote: »

<...> your interest in pictures of naked men is similarly irrelevant.

Oh, you're such a girl.

Brown Bomber · 02-02-2014 11:25PM

mango salsa wrote: »

right ok - let's stop black people adopting and people in wheelchairs and left handed people and protestants and red haired people because the kids will be bullied. Let's not stand upto the bullies. Let's victimise the people who want to be parents because they are black, disabled, left handed, protestants and red haired.

You have no automatic right to be given children just because "you want to be parents". The childs welfare must surely be the priority.

That said, I am not against gays adopting. FWIW and based on my personal interactions gays if anything would be better parents. I am just being a realist. With society the way it is I don't see how kids with two dads or two mums won't be bullied for being different.

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 11:27PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There were only 29 non-family adoption orders granted last year, and only 87 family adoption orders. Adoptions are as rare as hens' teeth, so the issue just doesn't need this degree of scrutiny or comment.

http://aai.gov.ie/attachments/article/32/Notice%20-%202013%20Annual%20Stats%20website.pdf

Looks like you didn't count the intercountry adoptions? Malawian babies landing in the bosom of wish-they-were-Madonna Irish mammies, maybe? There could be a whole human trafficking thing going on here? Say that deserves some kind of scrutiny anyway. Some of those children are bound to be bullied growing up in Ireland.

Iona vs Panti

Comments