Iona vs Panti

david75 · 04-02-2014 04:48AM

You drinking too? Me too:)

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 04:54AM

david75 wrote: »

Brown bomber, are you against equal rights for all?

If so, how are people denied those rights, able to raise children?
Our government has allowed gay people to adopt for years. What's the problem with doubling up?

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 04:56AM

david75 wrote: »

You drinking too? Me too:)

Ha, no. I am a recovering alcoholic so no drink for me. I do notice that I write like a drunk sometimes though, skip words and stuff and it never happened before. Slightly worrying. Now I am just typing what I am thinking. Take care.

AngryHippie · 04-02-2014 04:59AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

I get it now, you were trolling all along

That makes you some sort of legendarily persistent anti-comic I reckon.

Can we drop the act and come to some sort of accord then ?

04-02-2014 04:59AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My life experiences as a husband has taught me the heterosexual marriages are problem. If you want to then nobody will get offended nobody will make accusations against you based on this.

No one is saying that marriages aren't problematic.

We are saying that claiming that gay marriages are more problematic than straight marriages, or that they might be more problematic, based solely on the idea that they are different is homophobic.

Every single one of your examples does this. They either assume that single experiences are indicative as a whole or they start with a prejudicial assumption.

The ones you try to claim don't and focus on the welfare of children who might be marked out as different in fact selectively focus on the children of gay parents and not the other children who are also faced with this issue.
If it were the case that they just cared about the children the Iona institute would be looking to ban mixed race adoption and mixed race marriage. But they don't.
Additionally you agree that looking for such bans would be clearly racist and bigoted regardless of the "logic" used to justify such positions. (The same logic you are saying is behind opposition to gay adoption and marriage applies to it.)
Yet you are pretending that opposing gay marriage and adoption is not bigoted because it can be justified.

Because Gays are different perhaps?

obplayer · 04-02-2014 04:59AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

You are basing your views on how public policy should proceed on a comedy film???? I really truly madly hope you are after all a troll. Please.

david75 · 04-02-2014 05:02AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

She grew up grand! I saw the sequel!
I was raised in a typically Irish house except the mother was the raging abusive dipso. Not the da. The whole thing has shifted and its time we wake up and accept it. It's going to, like it or not. Personally I fear for the government. Cos once it does, there only them to rail against. And the HSE. they'll always catch the hot rock.

Anyways. Fair play staying off the gargle. I'd say you're some craic when you've had a few. Our loss.

Corkfeen · 04-02-2014 09:29AM

Did you really link to the Witherspoon Institute BB? The same guys who funded the Regnerus study no less, the US equivalent of Iona plus a bit. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute

Three men and a baby is a comedy film btw so there's another point that many will find offensive. Because you really don't seem to be taking this discussion seriously.

Penn · 04-02-2014 10:05AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

Delirium · 04-02-2014 10:09AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said. I am personally fine with gay adoption. I am at the same time trying to consider the possible unintentional effect on the child. Have you never seen 3 men a little baby?

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 10:32AM

obplayer wrote: »

You are basing your views on how public policy should proceed on a comedy film????

Well I have been campaigning for years to have our inept police force replaced by a guy who can make sound effects with his voice, a ladies man, a guy really into guns and a petit girl who is really quiet until she gets mad when she becomes really really loud.

obplayer wrote: »

Truly madly hope you are after all a troll. Please.

It was just an attempt at a light-hearted joke. David got it, he even made a better joke in response.

04-02-2014 10:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't find any real examples of this within this thread or within the media as a whole. I know you are using perceived above as you aren't actively agreeing with any of the logic people are using to justify their views, and I'm not asking/accusing you of doing so.

I'd just like to know, even in bullet point form, what any of these conclusions are, as I think if we discuss these conclusions in public debate, instead of being caught up in the minutiae of legal definitions etc, that the issue might become a little more accessible without need for "firing arrows across the bows" etc.

Could you, or anyone, please summarize any of the perceived logical conclusions which anyone has used to oppose same-sex marriage?

Can anyone shed any light on any perceived logical conclusions against marriage equality? (even ones they don't agree with).

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 10:36AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Did you really link to the Witherspoon Institute BB? The same guys who funded the Regnerus study no less, the US equivalent of Iona plus a bit. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute

I did. From your link " Smith, who says he is not a conservative, nevertheless described the response to the Regnerus study as a "witch hunt," adding that "Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex relationships. And now he is being made to pay"
Strikes a chord for me.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 10:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone shed any light on any perceived logical conclusions against marriage equality? (even ones they don't agree with).

I'll give you a a hypothetical one briefly because I have to go to work. Though a thousand proves no more than one as one demonstrates that you can be anti gay marriage and not be homophobic.

This woman is anti-gay marriage for "logical" reasons. When she was a child her parents separated. Her dad moved out and she stayed living in the family home with her mum. Soon after the dad has gone her best friend and next door neighbour's dad begins to abuse here. She has always felt that the presence of her father/the man in her home was acting as a deterrent to the neighbour and the abuse wouldn't have happened if he never left.

She doesn't want this same thing to happen to other children so she is against gay marriage.

Penn · 04-02-2014 10:48AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll give you a a hypothetical one briefly because I have to go to work. Though a thousand proves no more than one as one demonstrates that you can be anti gay marriage and not be homophobic.

This woman is anti-gay marriage for "logical" reasons. When she was a child her parents separated. Her dad moved out and she stayed living in the family home with her mum. Soon after the dad has gone her best friend and next door neighbour's dad begins to abuse here. She has always felt that the presence of her father/the man in her home was acting as a deterrent to the neighbour and the abuse wouldn't have happened if he never left.

She doesn't want this same thing to happen to other children so she is against gay marriage.

Wow, suddenly your Three Men and a Baby joke doesn't seem so bad if this is what you consider a serious hypothetical.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 10:50AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Wow, suddenly your Three Men and a Baby joke doesn't seem so bad if this is what you consider a serious hypothetical.

Could you expand?

Daith · 04-02-2014 10:52AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

She doesn't want this same thing to happen to other children so she is against gay marriage.

Except gay marriage has nothing to do with gay people raising children.

If same sex marriage does not pass, gay people will still be able to raise children in Ireland.

You do realize that gay people are raising children in Ireland?

04-02-2014 10:52AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll give you a a hypothetical one briefly because I have to go to work. Though a thousand proves no more than one as one demonstrates that you can be anti gay marriage and not be homophobic.

This woman is anti-gay marriage for "logical" reasons. When she was a child her parents separated. Her dad moved out and she stayed living in the family home with her mum. Soon after the dad has gone her best friend and next door neighbour's dad begins to abuse here. She has always felt that the presence of her father/the man in her home was acting as a deterrent to the neighbour and the abuse wouldn't have happened if he never left.

She doesn't want this same thing to happen to other children so she is against gay marriage.

And there's so much wrong with that hypothetical.

If she assumes that because there wouldn't be a male influence that all lesbian couples are subject to this, then she is being bigoted.

The "logic" does not change or justify this. The only question is if she is being homophobic or sexist.

Also if this hypothetical person does not also oppose divorce and single women adopting, she is singling out gay parents (male and female) then again she is being bigoted.

So not only can you not provide what you said you could, a logical, non bigoted opposition to gay marriage, even the ones you make up don't work.

I did. From your link " Smith, who says he is not a conservative, nevertheless described the response to the Regnerus study as a "witch hunt," adding that "Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex relationships. And now he is being made to pay"
Strikes a chord for me.

Well if he claims a conspiracy and is anti-mainstream, he must be right.

Penn · 04-02-2014 11:01AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you expand?

Because she wouldn't be against gay marriage for "logical" reasons. If her reasoning was that not having a father resulted in her being raped, then it's a completely irrational leap to jump to "Gay marriage is bad" without first condemning single parents and divorce. Hell, by her own "logic", having two fathers would have protected her. Two mothers would likely have had the same effect as there'd be less chance the neighbour would have had that opportunity with two parents around, regardless of whether they were male or female.

The issue in your hypothetical scenario wasn't the lack of a male father figure, it was an opportunistic abuser. It has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever.

I'm not saying the woman in your example is homophobic. I'm saying it's a ridiculous example and not one which demonstrates a "logical" reason to oppose same sex marriage.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 11:01AM

King Mob wrote: »

And there's so much wrong with that hypothetical.

If she assumes that because there wouldn't be a male influence that all lesbian couples are subject to this, then she is being bigoted.

The "logic" does not change or justify this. The only question is if she is being homophobic or sexist.

Also if this hypothetical person does not also oppose divorce and single women adopting, she is singling out gay parents (male and female) then again she is being bigoted.

So not only can you not provide what you said you could, a logical, non bigoted opposition to gay marriage, even the ones you make up don't work.

Well if he claims a conspiracy and is anti-mainstream, he must be right.

So in summary, if someone who has no bad will towards gay people at all and has formed an opinion based purely in the hope of preventing the abuse of children then this person is a "homophobe"?

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 11:04AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Because she wouldn't be against gay marriage for "logical" reasons. If her reasoning was that not having a father resulted in her being raped, then it's a completely irrational leap to jump to "Gay marriage is bad" without first condemning single parents and divorce. Hell, by her own "logic", having two fathers would have protected her. Two mothers would likely have had the same effect as there'd be less chance the neighbour would have had that opportunity with two parents around, regardless of whether they were male or female.

The issue in your hypothetical scenario wasn't the lack of a male father figure, it was an opportunistic abuser. It has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever.

I'm not saying the woman in your example is homophobic. I'm saying it's a ridiculous example and not one which demonstrates a "logical" reason to oppose same sex marriage.

I didn't say it was logical, though I can see how a strong male figure could act as a deterrent to a sexual predator.

I said in this case it would be logical from this woman's perpspective. It's not "homphobic" to be wrong.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 11:05AM

Daith wrote: »

Except gay marriage has nothing to do with gay people raising children.

If same sex marriage does not pass, gay people will still be able to raise children in Ireland.

You do realize that gay people are raising children in Ireland?

Ok, replace the parents separating with the parents divorcing because the mother fell in love with a woman.

Daith · 04-02-2014 11:08AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ok, replace the parents separating with the parents divorcing because the mother fell in love with a woman.

And they got civil partner shipped because marriage isn't legal. Is she against civil partnership or against homosexual relationships?

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 11:08AM

I think to be perfectly honest the notion that kids will bully a kid who has gay parents is no reason to ban same sex parents.

Kids bully other kids over EVERYTHING.

A friend of mine had kids in Dublin in the 90s tell her they couldn't play with her because she was a protestant! Her parents told their parents who were actually horrified that their offspring could come out with such nonsense.
I got bullied because my parents had an old car and everyone else was a snob.
A friend of mine was beaten up in primary school because his household was Irish speaking.
I know people who were bullied because their mum was overweight.

By that logic 95% of the country would be 'too weird to be parents' and could cause their children to be bullied.

A minority of kids can be unbelievable bullies. That's just life.

You deal with the bullies, not make the whole society conform to their bullying tactics!

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 11:14AM

Daith wrote: »

And they got civil partner shipped because marriage isn't legal. Is she against civil partnership or against homosexual relationships?

Just civil partnerships where there is a child involved. Nothing at all against homosexual relationships.

04-02-2014 11:14AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't say it was logical, though I can see how a strong male figure could act as a deterrent to a sexual predator.

I said in this case it would be logical from this woman's perpspective. It's not "homphobic" to be wrong.

Okay, so we have one 'perceived' logical conclusion example that we could / have discussed. I'd be confident enough that in debate, that that conclusion would be shown to be illogical. (do you agree? - Penncill Dick has shown some chasms in the logic)

Are there any other 'perceived logical conclusions' that can be used to deny same-sex marriage?

Without these examples, it's difficult to really build a case against same-sex marriage that can actually be debated. (tough to debate anything that's not rooted in logic)

Penn · 04-02-2014 11:18AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't say it was logical, though I can see how a strong male figure could act as a deterrent to a sexual predator.

I said in this case it would be logical from this woman's perpspective. It's not "homphobic" to be wrong.

But again, her reasoning is so flawed to the point of ridiculousness. It's not a scenario which proves your point in any way.

If a guy opposed same sex marriage because butterflies have wings, I wouldn't consider him to be homophobic. It may be logical from his perspective, but it doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. The logic of the woman in your example is so absurd in reality that it can't be considered logical to form a basis of proof for anything.

Obliq · 04-02-2014 11:53AM

Y'know, I would dearly love to stop people being allowed to so shamefully discuss the merits of gay parents as if they weren't speaking about the same kind of human as themselves, but that would stifle debate and is a big no-no.

I feel utterly helpless to stop gay people being outrageously hurt and dismayed by the self-righteousness of some people who presume to be speaking "on behalf of the children", but actually have the sense of entitlement to pronounce other human adults as somehow too different from themselves to be fully allowed the same human rights. Or if they don't come right out and say that, and are apparently fully for equality, still go digging and digging to try and discover some reason that SSM should be disallowed. Disallowed. I mean....I don't even...... F*CK that sh*t.

Cue some posts writing off my feelings as either faux outrage or hysteria. Anyhow, I just wanted to say this to the gay people involved in this debacle of a debate.....I feel your pain. I'm finding it incredibly difficult to read people objectifying your experiences and those of your children. Properly disgusted here :mad::mad::mad:

robindch · 04-02-2014 11:53AM

Paul Murphy in the EU Parliament, naming names. Copied in the other thread too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV6NVeWGqoQ

04-02-2014 11:55AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So in summary, if someone who has no bad will towards gay people at all and has formed an opinion based purely in the hope of preventing the abuse of children then this person is a "homophobe"?

If that opinion was based on a generalisation they made about gay people and/or she selectively opposes gay marriage while not the other things that lead to the same situation, then yes she is being homophobic.

Again, why don't the Iona Institute oppose interracial marriage and adoption like they with gay marriage and adoption?

Why is opposing interracial marriage and adoption always racist?

Iona vs Panti

Comments