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…2526283031…82

Comments

  • #812
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    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.
    Someone needs to figure it out because you can't use the same term to describe someone who goes gay-bashing and a former orphan who uses his experience to oppose gay marriage.


  • #813
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    I think your posting style has made your views, crystal clear.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Someone needs to figure it out because you can't use the same term to describe someone who goes gay-bashing and a former orphan who uses his experience to oppose gay marriage.

    It is figured out.

    No idea what the latter part of your post means.


  • #814
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?

    So how is the welfare of a child being negatively affected? If it isn't, what is there to consider?


  • #815
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    We've this circular discussion to look forward to for the next year?

    I think I'm going to start lobbying TDs to get the date moved to ASAP.


  • #816
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.
    I've been quite clear about this. It is logical from their perspective, not mine. Such as the orphaned child who thinks a fellow orphan has the best chance in life if has a father figure and a mother figure in his life. Not two father figures or two mother figures.
    King Mob wrote: »
    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.) )
    Not sure what you are talking about again. The previous example was me. I never said it was a reason to oppose gay marriage. Though if my assumption is correct it does create a moral dilemma.

    I do support gay adoption in theory but I don't think innocent children should be used as guinea pigs to see if it works either. There is no easy answer.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You agree that opposing interracial marriage and adoption is massively racist. So why is opposing gay marriage for the reason not similarly bigoted?
    It is bigoted. Do try to keep up.
    King Mob wrote: »
    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?)
    I am not arguing against gay marriage, though I suggest you read the link of the gay Irish journalist I linked to previously.


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jernal wrote: »
    So how is the welfare of a child being negatively affected? If it isn't, what is there to consider?
    The "how" is irrelevant to putting child welfare before anyone's desire to have a child to raise, and that goes across the board.


  • #818
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    sigh :(
    I do support gay adoption in theory but I don't think innocent children should be used as guinea pigs to see if it works either. There is no easy answer.

    I know this is going to be a surprise to you but - kids of gay parents are adults at this stage and *shock* they're not hideous human beings.


  • #819
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The "how" is irrelevant to putting child welfare before anyone's desire to have a child to raise, and that goes across the board.

    This makes no sense. If there's no mechanism for a threat by something then how can the something be relevant? You're just making a ridiculously obviously blanket statement that children should come first. Who opposes this? This is whatabouterye.g "What about THIS!" . For you to bring child welfare into to this discussion you NEED to justify how it is relevant. Simply making blanket and frankly obvious statements isn't going to cut it. It's derailing a discussion at the least. At most its infuriating other posters by placing a ridiculously obtuse strawman over their heads! Unless you have evidence to support the assertion that people do NOT care about the welfare of children or that they're risking this welfare i.e the 'HOW' that you deemed irrelevant. then it's a pointless statement to be making.

    Consider this your first warning.


  • #820
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    I think your posting style has made your views, crystal clear.

    It is figured out.

    No idea what the latter part of your post means.
    First time I've seen Rory. Seems like a nice chap, if a little fidgety. Nice as he is he doesn't get to define homophobia. He even says himself that when people hear the word homophobe they think of a horrible monster who goes around beating up gays.


  • #821
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    First time I've seen Rory. Seems like a nice chap, if a little fidgety. Nice as he is he doesn't get to define homophobia. He even says himself that when people hear the word homophobe they think of a horrible monster who goes around beating up gays.

    A gay man with profound experiences of homophobia does not get to define homophobia, yet a bunch of heterosexuals with no experience of the term, do? That's unbelievable.

    You obviously didn't listen to the full clip.

    The fact you haven't even heard of Rory when the thread title involves Panti, would indicate to me that you would rather argue the toss than actually partake in a real discussion.

    Not bothered listening to what you have to say anymore, with all due respects. Rubbish.


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    teddansonswig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 427 ✭✭teddansonswig


    Bb & co, please have a look at a case or 2 in the link below,
    Men & women have been chipping away the institutionalised challenges to living in a more open and tolerent society for years and that wall is coming down.

    Www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_cases


  • #823
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    A gay man with profound experiences of homophobia does not get to define homophobia, yet a bunch of heterosexuals with no experience of the term, do? That's unbelievable.

    You obviously didn't listen to the full clip.

    The fact you haven't even heard of Rory when the thread title involves Panti, would indicate to me that you would rather argue the toss than actually partake in a real discussion.

    Not bothered listening to what you have to say anymore, with all due respects. Rubbish.
    Is his experiences of homophobia more real than the gay people opposed to gay marriage?


  • #824
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Is his experiences of homophobia more real than the gay people opposed to gay marriage?
    That's not even worth a dignified answer.

    Find me these gay people and we'll talk. So far we have your man on Sat Night Show who didn't even explain his reasons, and the people who follow Starkey's heteronormative theory, which is a different debate altogether.

    Please watch the Panti's Noble Call video. Just, give it a try.


  • #825
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    teddansonswig wrote: »
    Bb & co, please have a look at a case or 2 in the link below,
    Men & women have been chipping away the institutionalised challenges to living in a more open and tolerent society for years and that wall is coming down.

    Www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_cases
    ... and this is a beatiful thing and long may it continue. :)


  • #826
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    That's not even worth a dignified answer.

    Find me these gay people and we'll talk. So far we have your man on Sat Night Show who didn't even explain his reasons, and the people who follow Starkey's heteronormative theory, which is a different debate altogether.

    Please watch the Panti's Noble Call video. Just, give it a try.
    I think his name is Paddy Manning.


  • #827
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I think his name is Paddy Manning.
    You ignore my points, so...y'know...


  • #828
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    That's not even worth a dignified answer.

    Find me these gay people and we'll talk. So far we have your man on Sat Night Show who didn't even explain his reasons, and the people who follow Starkey's heteronormative theory, which is a different debate altogether.

    Please watch the Panti's Noble Call video. Just, give it a try.
    OK. I will I promise. But then I'm going to sleep. CET and all that, good night and take care. Hope I haven't offended you unintentionally in some way. My only interest is in truth and justice.


  • #829
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    OK. I will I promise. But then I'm going to sleep. CET and all that, good night and take care. Hope I haven't offended you unintentionally in some way. My only interest is in truth and justice.
    :rolleyes: I'll save you the bother of replying. Don't.


  • #830
    teddansonswig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 427 ✭✭teddansonswig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... and this is a beatiful thing and long may it continue. :)

    Love it :)
    But please some bed time reading , hundreds of examples all over europe of unintentional homophobia that has been recognised for what it is. I think its time to support human rights and have the deacency to change some wording to extend this modern suffrage.


  • #831
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    Summarised below

    You don't have the right to tell other people how to live their lives
    Neither does the Iona institute

    If they are not breaking any subsequent law, there is no way they should be denied the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

    That is why a calm reasonable debate cannot be had, the side that is denying LGBT people their fundamental civil right to equality is breaking the law by doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Someone needs to figure it out because you can't use the same term to describe someone who goes gay-bashing and a former orphan who uses his experience to oppose gay marriage.

    That is the point you are missing.

    You don't have a right to oppose them on the basis of their sexuality.

    It is that simple

    The mere act of opposing them is discriminatory


  • #833
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've been quite clear about this. It is logical from their perspective, not mine. Such as the orphaned child who thinks a fellow orphan has the best chance in life if has a father figure and a mother figure in his life. Not two father figures or two mother figures.
    This is a claim based on the assumption that gay parents are somehow deficient. This is a homophobic assumption that is shown to not be true.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I do support gay adoption in theory but I don't think innocent children should be used as guinea pigs to see if it works either. There is no easy answer.
    And here's the thing. Why does it need to be tested? (ignoring the fact it has been extensively and shown to be no worse than other couples.)

    The fact you think there is some doubt about it is the result of some subtle homophobic ideas, the exact ones that Panti was referring to.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It is bigoted. Do try to keep up.
    So then since opposing gay marriage is bigoted, do you agree that the Iona Institute holds bigoted ideas? Does John Waters?


  • #834
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Discussion of protest and "quality of upcoming debate" coming up on newstalk at 8:50 (now!)

    Edit: You missed nothing. Except Colm O'Gorman's latest rational soundbite. Some man for one man, that fella. Mmmm, if I was a gay man.....


  • #835
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    Good opinion piece in this morning's Metro Herald.


  • #836
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Find it funny that some people are using the "there are some gay men against gay marriage" thing as some sort of great argument against making gay marriage legal in Ireland,

    Lets not forget that there were women AGAINST giving women the right to vote in numerous countrys around the world, would you dream of saying that these women were in anyway right?

    Of course not you'd be a ****en idiot to claim the women against a women's vote are right.

    These women (the same as men against gay marriage) are so affected by the minority in society view that they are against the rights they themselves should have, its as simple as that.


  • #837
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    vitani wrote: »
    Good opinion piece in this morning's Metro Herald.

    http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=29d1fc55-aa9f-42b7-a349-7e59ecaeb548

    It's well written. Not sure if the link will come up right though.

    Hmm, maybe. Page 6 peeps :-)


  • #838
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Brown Bomber, can you answer a few questions for me please,

    Do you think these people in the photos below are racist?
    Do you think its racist to be against mixed race marriages and mixed race education?

    Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg

    Montgomery_Ala_Protest_1961.jpg


  • #839
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    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.

    That explains a lot. Most people on this forum would assume that the regular posters would be familiar with John Waters and his somewhat old-fashioned (putting it nicely) views.


  • #840
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    ravendude wrote: »
    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.
    I'd agree that the influence of Catholic institutions have to decline. What I think is less clear is what will come instead. At the profound risk of barrelling on with the same point endlessly, that's why I'm a little perplexed over how this particular issue gets up the political agenda. It suggests, to me, a degree of incoherence around what the alternative shared values are. We can't decide, particularly, what education is about once we've removed religion and, possibly, compulsory Irish off the curriculum. In fact, we could almost stop there. Does our liberal secularism mean we'd remove the special status of Irish in education? Should we elevate Polish into a similar status?

    It's almost as if because there's a slate of issues around that are hard to deal with, we end up talking about something that really just has symbolic status. We'll fight the Romans for your right to have babies, Stan.
    ravendude wrote: »
    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?
    It depends on the precise polling method (it could be over the phone), but your scepticism has a basis. Back in the day, opinion polls in Northern Ireland used to consistently underestimate DUP support which was generally attributed to people not wanting to admit their true voting intentions.


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    This'll brighten your day: http://www.chrisdidthis.com/send-a-message-to-rte-and-iona/


Advertisement