Iona vs Panti

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 02:13PM

robindch wrote: »

As the author says, if, as a guy, "being gay" is something that you can start, but not stop, then hysterical aversion to being seen to be a gay man, including open hatred of gay men, makes a sad kind of sense.

3a7c95d157ae65af986c0f64734a16f644754642da2e6e3679a5855169addf82.jpg

:pac:

sid waddell · 03-02-2014 02:43PM

I would think it's very much fair comment to call somebody homophobic based on the following:

This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it; This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing; It is a deliberate sabotage of the culture”, continues Waters, “and the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satire…. But sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/humanisti...c-was-rory-oneill-right/#sthash.KVnyqsNg.dpuf

In the above piece, John Waters:
i) claims "the gay lobby" "wants to destroy the institution of marriage"
ii) claims people in favour of gay marriage aim to attack society and human civilisation
iii) claims people in favour of gay marriage are attempting to sabotage "the culture" (whatever that means)
iv) claims people in favour of gay marriage "relish the destruction" as a result of iii)

I would have thought that's as blatant a example of homophobia as you're likely to see published anywhere.

J_E · 03-02-2014 02:54PM

Yet he's ~€30k richer for having such an opinion.

lazygal · 03-02-2014 02:59PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Yet he's ~€30k richer for having such an opinion.

Yeah I'm so angry about this. But I think its 40 grand for being called what he is, someone who wants gay people to be denied the right to marry. 40 grand for someone who referred to lesbian couples as playing house. 40 grand for someone who has a regular column in a national newspaper - something as rare as hens teeth for the new crop of journalists - yet has the brass neck to complain about being silenced. 40 grand. A years' salary for a large number of tv licence payers. He has the nerve to complain about silencing debate and gets 40 grand for his butthurt ego. A serious low in Irish media.

Links234 · 03-02-2014 03:05PM

From here

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 03:05PM

sid waddell wrote: »

I would have thought that's as blatant a example of homophobia as you're likely to see published anywhere.

He does overstate his point in that paragraph. Before someone starts alleging a conspiracy, they need to show some evidence. I'm not sure that, if challenged, John Waters would be able to present actual examples that suggested someone has a conscious agenda.

But he is exploring issues that do exist. I sometimes feel that John Waters problem is that he wants to engage in a discussion about what this society is about, if its not about being Irish-speaking Catholic rural-dwellers, but no-one else wants to engage with him. I'd feel some of the comments he makes in that article are apt, and valid contributions. I feel the line he comes out with here is, substantially, right.

http://collegetribune.ie/index.php/2012/08/gay-marriage-is-a-product-of-this-bunker-mentality/
<...>
“Don’t think that this is just something you can jump on to become a fashionable person, to become a person with the right opinions. If you’re going to have opinions, by all means have whatever opinions you want, but arrive at them on the basis of reason and logic and fact. Don’t come to me, thinking you’re superior to me because you happen to have a different opinion that you picked up from your fashionable teacher or your fashionable friends.”

This he also believes is true of politicians in Ireland at the moment. Stating, “Politicians see this as an opportunity to advertise their liberal credentials.” Waters believes that this has also become a way for politicians to get cut slack on other issues, because they are seen as having the right opinion on same-sex marriage.

“Interestingly it is the most ‘conservative’ politicians who are the most vulnerable to that because they’re looking for brownie points.” He continued, “They don’t really care. Fundamentally it’s not really an economic issue, it’s not something their careers will live or die on and so it’s an opportunity to buy credit.”

<...>

Sarky · 03-02-2014 03:08PM

I'd love to see the logic and reason and fact that led Waters to form the homophobic opinion that gays are out to destroy marriage, and will enjoy the destruction of society. You have a link to that, by any chance?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 03:11PM

Sarky wrote: »

I'd love to see the logic and reason and fact that led Waters to form the homophobic opinion that gays are out to destroy marriage, and will enjoy the destruction of society. You have a link to that, by any chance?

No, and I actually said that in the first three sentences of my post. Sorry it missed you.

Links234 · 03-02-2014 03:15PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I feel the line he comes out with here is, substantially, right.

It's weapons grade bull****. He does nothing but try to dismiss and hand-wave away genuinely held morals and principles, saying that people are only saying they hold such viewpoints because they're either fashionable, or they're buying political favour, or pressured into it by the meeeja, or being strong-armed or otherwise bullied into it. Perish the thought people might have different values than Jawn Waters!

He could only be more nausiatingly condescending if he called everyone who disagreed with him 'Sheeple' but since it's a term not in his thesaurus, we're saved that.

Nodin · 03-02-2014 03:15PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But he is exploring issues that do exist. I sometimes feel that John Waters problem is that he wants to engage in a discussion about what this society is about, if its not about being Irish-speaking Catholic rural-dwellers, but no-one else wants to engage with him. ............

No. John Waters wants to engage in a discussion about what he feels this society should be about, but usually lacks the wherewithal or coherence to do so. When decipherable his thoughts are a rehash of what we've spent the last few decades trying to get away from, with a dash of luddism thrown in.

sid waddell · 03-02-2014 03:21PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

He does overstate his point in that paragraph. Before someone starts alleging a conspiracy, they need to show some evidence. I'm not sure that, if challenged, John Waters would be able to present actual examples that suggested someone has a conscious agenda.

But he is exploring issues that do exist. I sometimes feel that John Waters problem is that he wants to engage in a discussion about what this society is about, if its not about being Irish-speaking Catholic rural-dwellers, but no-one else wants to engage with him. I'd feel some of the comments he makes in that article are apt, and valid contributions. I feel the line he comes out with here is, substantially, right.

http://collegetribune.ie/index.php/2...ker-mentality/
<...>
“Don’t think that this is just something you can jump on to become a fashionable person, to become a person with the right opinions. If you’re going to have opinions, by all means have whatever opinions you want, but arrive at them on the basis of reason and logic and fact. Don’t come to me, thinking you’re superior to me because you happen to have a different opinion that you picked up from your fashionable teacher or your fashionable friends.”

This he also believes is true of politicians in Ireland at the moment. Stating, “Politicians see this as an opportunity to advertise their liberal credentials.” Waters believes that this has also become a way for politicians to get cut slack on other issues, because they are seen as having the right opinion on same-sex marriage.

“Interestingly it is the most ‘conservative’ politicians who are the most vulnerable to that because they’re looking for brownie points.” He continued, “They don’t really care. Fundamentally it’s not really an economic issue, it’s not something their careers will live or die on and so it’s an opportunity to buy credit.”

Nothing Waters writes there is relevant, and is simply an attempt to muddy the waters (pun not intended) by ascribing motives to people, and tie the issue of gay marriage to other, non-connected issues in an effort to discredit people he disagrees with.

vitani · 03-02-2014 03:22PM

Links234 wrote: »

He could only be more nausiatingly condescending if he called everyone who disagreed with him 'Sheeple' but since it's a term not in his thesaurus, we're saved that.

His writing does have a ring of 'Joey Tribbiani using a thesaurus' about it.

Sarky · 03-02-2014 03:26PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, and I actually said that in the first three sentences of my post. Sorry it missed you.

So... why did you continue with saying he had a "substantially right" point when you agree everything he just said was based on horsesh*t? If your next response could refrain from your favoured subtle snide digs as well, that'd be just lovely.

robindch · 03-02-2014 03:45PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 03:50PM

Links234 wrote: »

He does nothing but try to dismiss and hand-wave away genuinely held morals and principles, saying that people are only saying they hold such viewpoints because they're either fashionable, or they're buying political favour, or pressured into it by the meeeja, or being strong-armed or otherwise bullied into it.

He certainly does some of that. But it's not all he's doing. He's right in pointing to how this issue gets up the political agenda, when it's practically an irrelevance.

Nodin wrote: »

No. John Waters wants to engage in a discussion about what he feels this society should be about, but usually lacks the wherewithal or coherence to do so. When decipherable his thoughts are a rehash of what we've spent the last few decades trying to get away from, with a dash of luddism thrown in.

Again, you're really just repeating what I said, only you're adding "and he's a cnut". There's a dialogue that needs to be had in this society, and it's still not taking place.

sid waddell wrote: »

Nothing Waters writes there is relevant, and is simply an attempt to muddy the waters (pun not intended) by ascribing motives to people, and tie the issue of gay marriage to other, non-connected issues in an effort to discredit people he disagrees with.

I'm afraid that's just sloganeering.

Sarky wrote: »

So... why did you continue with saying he had a "substantially right" point when you agree everything he just said was based on horsesh*t? If your next response could refrain from your favoured subtle snide digs as well, that'd be just lovely.

I'd say it would be even easier if the subject matter could be expressed as either a one or a zero, but that's denied to us too.

If you really can't decipher how I could feel he was substantially right about one thing, but over the top on another thing, then you do have my sympathy. If, however, (which is what I suspect) you actually are capable of comprehending this, but couldn't be arsed, then I will want to laugh at you.

sid waddell · 03-02-2014 03:55PM

Saying something is "practically an irrelevance" is a fine example of sloganeering. Why the issue of gay marriage "practically an irrelevance"?

What relevant points does Waters make in that College Tribune piece?

J_E · 03-02-2014 03:57PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

He certainly does some of that. But it's not all he's doing. He's right in pointing to how this issue gets up the political agenda, when it's practically an irrelevance.

It's hardly practically an irrelevance if groups like Iona and segments of the public are so gravely concerned about it.

So far, irrelevance has cost over €80k.

robindch · 03-02-2014 04:06PM

Sarky wrote: »

If your next response could refrain from your favoured subtle snide digs as well, that'd be just lovely.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If, however, (which is what I suspect) you actually are capable of comprehending this, but couldn't be arsed, then I will want to laugh at you.

Boys and girls, no need for that kind of silliness, now please.

Thanking youze.

Pherekydes · 03-02-2014 04:06PM

sid waddell wrote: »

Saying something is "practically an irrelevance" is a fine example of sloganeering. Why the issue of gay marriage "practically an irrelevance"?

Hey, let me get that one.

Because there are so few gays who might want to get married it's ok to continue discriminating against them. The rest of us are A-OK, thank you very much.

Now I'll be AFK for the next while while I go and whip my Fillipino slave housekeeper. But don't go getting outraged, coz like she's the only one in the whole of Dublin, and therefore an irrelevance.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 04:21PM

sid waddell wrote: »

What relevant points does Waters make in that College Tribune piece?

As I said, I thought the bit I quoted was substantially correct.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hey, let me get that one.

Because there are so few gays who might want to get married it's ok to continue discriminating against them. The rest of us are A-OK, thank you very much.

Now I'll be AFK for the next while while I go and whip my Fillipino slave housekeeper. But don't go getting outraged, coz like she's the only one in the whole of Dublin, and therefore an irrelevance.

That's pretty much it, if you deduct the hyperbole. Again, I've said as much already; for example

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think it's even necessary to get into that. The point is that this hits the agenda as an adult equality issue. It doesn't hit the agenda as a child welfare issue. The issue isn't stated as "children are being harmed as their de facto parents can't obtain legal recognition". It's stated as "certain de facto parents are miffed that the law won't recognise their status".

If our starting position was child welfare, how long would it take before we'd identify gay marriage as a priority action? How many priority actions would have identified before we got there? For the sake of argument, would action relating to the educational attainment of Traveller children be a higher or lower priority?

Corkfeen · 03-02-2014 04:21PM

Robin, I just read that warning in the voice of Gay Byrne.

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 04:25PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Robin, I just read that warning in the voice of Gay Byrne.

I heard it as Morgan Freeman's version of G-d in Bruce Almighty

swampgas · 03-02-2014 04:32PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think it's even necessary to get into that. The point is that this hits the agenda as an adult equality issue. It doesn't hit the agenda as a child welfare issue. The issue isn't stated as "children are being harmed as their de facto parents can't obtain legal recognition". It's stated as "certain de facto parents are miffed that the law won't recognise their status".

I don't think "miffed" is an accurate description for how people feel when they face the sort of legal discrimination that exists here. In fact it sounds like you are glibly dismissing their concern at being excluded from legal protections extended to heterosexual couples.

vitani · 03-02-2014 04:37PM

Graham Norton tweeted the video from the Abbey earlier. Laughing at his response to Panti's thank you.

Cabaal · 03-02-2014 04:41PM

vitani wrote: »

Graham Norton tweeted the video from the Abbey earlier. Laughing at his response to Panti's thank you.

Lawyers that have graduated are not the only problem they have, they also need somebody who got atleast a C in Junior Cert geography

taken from a news story they reported on a few years back

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 04:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

I don't think "miffed" is an accurate description for how people feel when they face the sort of legal discrimination that exists here. In fact it sounds like you are glibly dismissing their concern at being excluded from legal protections extended to heterosexual couples.

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

The point I'm making is clear enough. Borrowing Pherekydes glibness, its not that the rest of us are A-OK. Many of us are far from A-OK. That's why it's puzzling to see a largely symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, that won't have much of an impact on anyone. That's different to saying that we can't get a good headwind of MOPEry going.

The point is why this issue gets up the political agenda. Because, always, attention being given to one thing necessarily means attention not being given to another. Any issue in isolation can seem laudible. But one of the laudible things in Panti's statement at the Abbey was his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

swampgas · 03-02-2014 04:58PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

The point I'm making is clear enough. Borrowing Pherekydes glibness, its not that the rest of us are A-OK. Many of us are far from A-OK. That's why it's puzzling to see a largely symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, that won't have much of an impact on anyone. That's different to saying that we can't get a good headwind of MOPEry going.

The point is why this issue gets up the political agenda. Because, always, attention being given to one thing necessarily means attention not being given to another. Any issue in isolation can seem laudible. But one of the laudible things in Panti's statement at the Abbey was his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

I'm not quite clear what your point is, to be honest.

Are you arguing that this issue affects so few people or has such little impact that public debate on it is a distraction and should be replaced with a debate on something weightier?

Cabaal · 03-02-2014 05:08PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

The point I'm making is clear enough. Borrowing Pherekydes glibness, its not that the rest of us are A-OK. Many of us are far from A-OK. That's why it's puzzling to see a largely symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, that won't have much of an impact on anyone. That's different to saying that we can't get a good headwind of MOPEry going.

The point is why this issue gets up the political agenda. Because, always, attention being given to one thing necessarily means attention not being given to another. Any issue in isolation can seem laudible. But one of the laudible things in Panti's statement at the Abbey was his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

The only one's making this into a political thing are the anti equal rights side, because they see it as the only way to stop what they see as a issue that will undermine soceity.

As we've seen from survey after survey a majority are in favor of equal rights for gay people when it comes to marriage.

Whist you may like to claim that its largely a symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, it still requires the people vote on it and very clearly the anti equal rights side do not see it as merely a symbolic amendment.

The anti side see it as a step to undermine society, just like they saw de-criminlisation of homosexuality as a step to undermine society and marriage.

This view point has been made by waters, iona and the anti equal rights person on the Saturday night show

On the subject of the women on the Saturday night show, as we saw when she was called out on her views of hatred she played stupid claiming to never had such views and that it was a very very long time ago....it was 1993 ffs!

Lets recap on the viewpoint she has, shall we?

J_E · 03-02-2014 05:09PM

his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

Comfortable, but that kind of experience is ever-present and really nasty.

Should we say that because our life has mostly be good, we should over look things like this?

SpaceTime · 03-02-2014 05:12PM

I think a lot of these people seem to forget that we have these things known as 'archives' and 'the internet'.

If you wrote a letter to a paper, said something in a paper, were quoted in print etc. Or you were on the radio or television. It can be quite easily looked up.

It's in the public domain already and you can't unpublish it.

Iona vs Panti

Comments