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…2425272930…82

Comments

  • #782
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Oh, you're such a girl.
    Bet you say that to all the boys.


  • #783
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    robindch wrote: »
    Bet you say that to all the boys.

    He knows better than to say it to the wimmin, anyways :)


  • #784
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    AerynSun wrote: »
    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.
    WHy are you being so facetious about the suffering of innocent young children? It's not a laughing matter.


  • #785
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    I know anecdotes =/= data, but I do actually know someone in his 20s who was raised by a same sex couple, and wasn't bullied for it.


  • #786
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    WHy are you being so facetious about the suffering of innocent young children? It's not a laughing matter.

    If I'm being facetious (and yes, okay, I am), it's because I'm seething with rage at the notion that it 'would be better for the children' to 'spare them being bullied'... which sounds lovely on the surface... but is just so not okay on any level. It's a straw man - dressed up to look respectable - that really says "We don't think the gays should get the kids".

    Also... why do we be talking about 'the gays'? I see a red flag every time that expression gets used, it's very 'othering' to put a 'the' and a plural form 'gays'. Can't we talk about 'LGBT people', rather?


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    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.

    I agree that racism is a problem, and I think direct provision is going to end up being one of the scandals of our times.

    But I'd disagree about gay marriage being irrelevant. Equality is never a non-issue. It might be irrelevant to us collectively because we have bigger problems or whatever way you want to put it, but it's not irrelevant to the many people who would like to legitimise their relationship but can't.


  • #788
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Brown bomber, To see John Waters' double standard about defamation go to 13:15 on this Frontline debate on children referendum http://t.co/8usK1Ngrna


  • #789
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


    "innocent until proven guilty", unless of course you want to speak out both sides of your mouth re the gay community. Dear me.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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..

    Jaysus, I never thought of that. We better stop people marrying who might have mixed race children or fat, ginger or lanky children. Or children who are too good looking - they'll get a hard time of it as well. Don't want anyone too smart either. We should be able to identify the gene for big ears and big noses and ban those ones getting hitched too.


  • #790
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    WHy are you being so facetious about the suffering of innocent young children? It's not a laughing matter.

    Schools should simply not tolerate bullying. I experienced bullying throughout my time in school. A child will get bullied over anything.

    By your reasoning, we should live with an acceptable branch of homophobia and let the bullies dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Children who hold homophobic views in childhood and let this play out against classmates are liable to continue to do so in later life,sure the state recognises same sex as inferior couples.

    Then extend this to people of different ethnicities, disabilities or age. Etc


  • #791
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    That's very Kind of you and to your credit if I responded to you in a fair and respectful manner it was because that was a tone you kept throughout with me and that's not easy when you are arguing something and its 10 against 1 :pac:

    I can't give you any more evidence that hasn't already been given but I think reserving judgement on Waters et al is actually fair enough but at the same time I don't think what Rory said was unreasonable (especially in his own definition)

    What bothered me most about this whole thing was actually RTE's reaction. Over the next year and a half RTE's role should be to remain impartial and facilitate debate, not shut it down. Instead of removing the interview and apologising on Rory's behalf and then making a payout they should have given Iona and the others the space to respond to such accusations. What they did doesn't set a good precedent for future debates on this topic. We dont want it to be a situation where we are afraid to say what needs to be said for fear of being sued (and that works both ways)


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Kids get bullied for wearing glasses, for being mixed race (why is __ white and you're not, etc), for looking and acting a certain way, for a multitude of reasons. That is not a good enough reason. Parents are nearly always the culprits of those sorts of views. I guarantee you, if kids grow up with the notion that there are different families, and that it is a mainstream aspect of society, they absorb and accept it. Kids are sponges. They aren't born with these predispositions. There's an onus on parents and friends to correct those sorts of things. Hence now we talk about the contextual use of homophobia, anti-gay attitudes, etc.


  • #793
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I'd rather be adopted by two hippopotamuses than homophobic religious fundies like the Iona lot!


  • #794
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    AerynSun wrote: »
    Looks like you didn't count the intercountry adoptions?
    Quite consciously; I mentioned that earlier
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Adoption by non-family members is quite rare these days. That's why this practice of adopting children from abroad has become so popular. Whether taking children from their cultural milieu in this manner is acceptable, when we so rarely do it with children from our own society, is moot.
    It's not a simple topic, and its merits do get discussed.

    http://www.economist.com/node/15469423
    robindch wrote: »
    Bet you say that to all the boys.
    Time for something completely different.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI
    vitani wrote: »
    It might be irrelevant to us collectively because we have bigger problems or whatever way you want to put it, but it's not irrelevant to the many people who would like to legitimise their relationship but can't.
    Some amount of folk may like such a change. But I just don't see where it has caught the public imagination. I don't see the ground up swell of support, which there was around the citizenship referendum. It's like the issue arrived on the political agenda from nowhere; that's something that that's more interesting than the topic itself, IMHO. But, to be clear, I'm not at all saying others might not see a more general interest at stake here. I just feel a need to say that I don't see the point of pressing general interest.


  • #795
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Quite consciously; I mentioned that earlierIt's not a simple topic, and its merits do get discussed.

    Mentioned it, yes, but didn't give the count. You only gave the figures for family and non-family Irish adoptions. There were near twice the number of intercountry adoptions to add to your figures - and if you'd counted those, perhaps you wouldn't have been so quick to suggest that the number was so small it barely warranted any attention?


  • #796
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    AerynSun wrote: »
    Mentioned it, yes, but didn't give the count. You only gave the figures for family and non-family Irish adoptions. There were near twice the number of intercountry adoptions to add to your figures - and if you'd counted those, perhaps you wouldn't have been so quick to suggest that the number was so small it barely warranted any attention?
    If you re-read the sentences that I've helpfully extracted from my earlier post, it should be clear to you that I'm suggesting the low number of domestic non-family adoptions should be giving us some pause for thought when we consider the issue of intercountry adoptions.

    I actually don't see how I could have made the point clearer.


  • #797
    ravendude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭ravendude


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Quite consciously; I mentioned that earlierIt's not a simple topic, and its merits do get discussed.

    http://www.economist.com/node/15469423Time for something completely different.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI
    Some amount of folk may like such a change. But I just don't see where it has caught the public imagination. I don't see the ground up swell of support, which there was around the citizenship referendum. It's like the issue arrived on the political agenda from nowhere; that's something that that's more interesting than the topic itself, IMHO. But, to be clear, I'm not at all saying others might not see a more general interest at stake here. I just feel a need to say that I don't see the point of pressing general interest.

    Im not so sure. I see a sizable societal rift between Catholic conservatism and liberal secularism opening up in the next couple of years. I think it could become a defining theme over the next while, especially with schools at stake now. Im hearing a lot more (ignorant) references to "our schools" by Catholics. Im not sure how pervasive these more defensive types are though, as I dont tend to mix so much in such circles.

    I think a lot of the referendum polls are baloney as someone else pointed out. People are more likely to espouse a bigoted vote when they get to cast it privately - are polls done face to face or is this an invalid assumption of mine?


  • #798
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Again, claiming that having gay parents would be detrimental (especially when all the evidence shows this is not the case) is based on a homophobic notion that they are less capable than straight parents.

    And even if it was purely about children being bullied, then why aren't these people campaigning against mixed race adoption?
    Cause doing so would be racist?
    Or because the rights of heterosexual couples are more important to uphold?
    Both?


  • #799
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I actually don't see how I could have made the point clearer.

    You could have put the two extra numbers into your post, that would have been helpful.


  • #800
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    porsche959 wrote: »
    Brendan O'Connor:



    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/brendan-oconnor/debate-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-29971736.html

    That was actually quite funny.

    I'll give you one thing about Brenny, he does know how to hire a good ghost-writer.


  • #801
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Here you go then. Written by a gay Irishman.
    http://thickerthantalk.blogspot.se/2014/01/same-sex-marriage-anti-freedom-anti.html
    That's not an argument against marriage equality; it's an argument against marriage (as best I can parse it).
    Homophobia is always a serious and damaging accusation.
    That's an evasion, not a response.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's not an argument against marriage equality; it's an argument against marriage (as best I can parse it). That's an evasion, not a response.
    Not really sure how you could come to your first conclusion and we'll have to agree to disagree on your second point. Both racism and homophobia are always by definition serious allegations.


  • #803
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, claiming that having gay parents would be detrimental (especially when all the evidence shows this is not the case) is based on a homophobic notion that they are less capable than straight parents.

    And even if it was purely about children being bullied, then why aren't these people campaigning against mixed race adoption?
    Cause doing so would be racist?
    Or because the rights of heterosexual couples are more important to uphold?
    Both?
    Haven't a breeze what you are talking about to be fair. Not sure who these "people" are or if you've somehow missed me saying that I think gay people would be perfectly capable parents,


  • #804
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    I never claimed that there is a right to adopt.
    Your bullying argument doesn't stand up.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #805
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Not really sure how you could come to your first conclusion and we'll have to agree to disagree on your second point. Both racism and homophobia are always by definition serious allegations.
    That's a problem though. By making out homophobia to be a damning word (which is what happened with the word racist, because certain groups warped the gravity of the word), it becomes a weasel word, and this can never happen, because that word is so, so important. I discuss is more here. If we can't use a word when it's needed because a group want to abuse the definition, we have a fairly serious problem on their hands.


  • #806
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    This is pathetic.


  • #807
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Haven't a breeze what you are talking about to be fair. Not sure who these "people" are or if you've somehow missed me saying that I think gay people would be perfectly capable parents,

    The examples you are providing of people giving logical non-homophobic reasons to oppose gay marriage.

    They are neither as it's been shown they are not logical and that by selectively opposing gay marriage or adoption they are being homophobic.

    In your previous example, if the person really did think that the children being bullied is a reason to oppose gay marriage and adoption, then logically he should also oppose interracial marriage and adoption. (unless he is specifically singling out gay parents because they would be less capable of dealing with such thing, therefore being homophobic.)

    You agree that opposing interracial marriage and adoption is massively racist. So why is opposing gay marriage for the reason not similarly bigoted?

    Can you provide any example of an argument against gay marriage that doesn't stem from homophobic notions? (Particularly one from Waters or the Iona Institute?)


  • #808
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you provide any argument against gay marriage that doesn't stem from homophobic notions?

    There has been ample opportunity in the last 10 pages of this thread to provide arguments. The arguments put forward have been in blind ignorance of the information available on the subject. This is a long running troll, with nothing more than conjecture, straw men and false comparisons to feed the discussion.
    It's blindingly obvious to everyone reading this thread, that there is an element of homophobia being exhibited to those arguing against LGBT individuals being granted the exact same rights in the eyes of the law.
    If not a case of full-blown hatred, then at the very least a sinister condescending undertone of discrimination.
    If the law is fair, or blind, then this needs to be addressed as a matter of course. Is it the most urgent issue facing the legislature, probably not, but it is definitely one of the easiest to address, and there is no reason to oppose it beyond it being an erosion of the power of the church and religious lobby groups.
    As far as I am concerned, those groups can get fcuked. They have no right to control the behavior of law-abiding citizens.

    BB, I'm not calling you out on the basis of homophobia, but your views are fairly out of touch with reality, and your continued rehashing of the same non-points in your non-argument is never going to win this argument for you. Every post in the last few days has only strengthened the points made by Rory and others. I'd say now would be a good time to give up, the world has moved on from Catholic 1960's Ireland (thank God) and It's time for a better more tolerant future, where laws are made to prevent the many getting discriminated against because of the bigotry of the few. Best of luck.


  • #809
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Breda O Brien playing the victim card in today's times
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-times-columnist-says-rté-libel-payment-was-not-about-the-money-1.1677013#.Uu7vak1ex54.twitter


  • #810
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I never claimed that there is a right to adopt.
    Your bullying argument doesn't stand up.
    I don't have a bullying argument. Surely you must agree that the welfare of the child comes before any consideration of an adults "want" to be parents?


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    There has been ample opportunity in the last 10 pages of this thread to provide arguments. The arguments put forward have been in blind ignorance of the information available on the subject. This is a long running troll, with nothing more than conjecture, straw men and false comparisons to feed the discussion.
    It's blindingly obvious to everyone reading this thread, that there is an element of homophobia being exhibited to those arguing against LGBT individuals being granted the exact same rights in the eyes of the law.
    If not a case of full-blown hatred, then at the very least a sinister condescending undertone of discrimination.
    If the law is fair, or blind, then this needs to be addressed as a matter of course. Is it the most urgent issue facing the legislature, probably not, but it is definitely one of the easiest to address, and there is no reason to oppose it beyond it being an erosion of the power of the church and religious lobby groups.
    As far as I am concerned, those groups can get fcuked. They have no right to control the behavior of law-abiding citizens.

    BB, I'm not calling you out on the basis of homophobia, but your views are fairly out of touch with reality, and your continued rehashing of the same non-points in your non-argument is never going to win this argument for you. Every post in the last few days has only strengthened the points made by Rory and others. I'd say now would be a good time to give up, the world has moved on from Catholic 1960's Ireland (thank God) and It's time for a better more tolerant future, where laws are made to prevent the many getting discriminated against because of the bigotry of the few. Best of luck.
    Since you apparently have it all figured out could you please summarise briefly my views as I don't think you've understood at all.


Advertisement