Iona vs Panti

Delirium · 04-02-2014 11:58AM

MSNBC now have the story on their site. Irish drag queen gives impassioned speech on gay rights

A forthcoming referendum in Ireland on the issue of marriage equality has prompted a debate in the Irish media. “The only place that you see it’s OK to be really horrible and mean about gays is on the Internet in the comments and people who make a living writing opinion pieces for newspapers,” O’Neill said of the debate during an appearance on Irish broadcaster RTÉ last month.

O’Neill’s comments sparked controversy, prompting weeks of intensifying debate in Ireland’s newspapers and on news programs over homophobia and gay rights. Protesters gathered Sunday in Dublin to demonstrate against some of the media coverage.

So Saturday, dressed as alter-ego Panti Bliss, O’Neill brought the debate to the Abbey Theater audience. “Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the television and there is a panel of people… having a reasoned debate… about you? About what kind of person you are… about whether or not God, herself, thinks you’re an abomination?”

“That feels oppressive,” O’Neill told the crowd.

Thanks to Iona + Waters for raising awareness internationally :pac:

phantom_lord · 04-02-2014 12:06PM

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.

But two Dads would be twice the deterrent. So she's just anti-lesbians really?

robindch · 04-02-2014 12:08PM

SW wrote: »

MSNBC now have the story on their site. Irish drag queen gives impassioned speech on gay rights

Brilliant. I take my (disputed) hat off to Panti and bow rather dramatically in his direction

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:15PM

robindch wrote: »

Brilliant. I take my (disputed) hat off to Panti and bow rather dramatically in his direction

Indeed. All of this global publicity would normally cost waaaaay more than 85k.

I am loving this twist of fate.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Never said that did I? The opinion is based on two life events which she has rightly or wrongly linked together in her mind. 1) Her father leaving the family home and 2) Her conclusion that children like she was are more vulnerable without the visible presence of the father as a deterrent to sexual predators. She considers the best protection of children is to have a father.

King Mob wrote: »

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

I don't know anything about Iona.

King Mob wrote: »

Why is opposing interracial marriage and adoption always racist?

With regards to adoption I've already said that I agree with the Association of Black Social Workers that it is not always racist.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:19PM

Obliq wrote: »

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:

I never have said that gay people are different. Only that a woman/woman , man/man and man/woman are three different types of relationships.

vitani · 04-02-2014 12:20PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know anything about Iona.

Then why are you in a thread entitled 'Iona vs Panti'? Surely, at some point over the last few days, in between your many, many posts on here, you could have taken the time to learn about them?

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:22PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never have said that gay people are different. Only that a woman/woman , man/man and man/woman are three different types of relationships.

But you are using that 'difference' to argue that man/man and woman/woman is lesser than man/woman - there is a word for that.

04-02-2014 12:25PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Never said that did I? The opinion is based on two life events which she has rightly or wrongly linked together in her mind. 1) Her father leaving the family home and 2) Her conclusion that children like she was are more vulnerable without the visible presence of the father as a deterrent to sexual predators. She considers the best protection of children is to have a father.

Because she thinks that all lesbian parents are less capable of protecting their children than hetero-parents?

That's a generalisation, which is bigotry, plain and simple.

If she was attacked by a black man would he conclusion that black people should not be allowed near children be equally logical and not bigoted?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know anything about Iona.

So then what point are you trying to make with your silly hypothetical.
Even if it showed that you can oppose gay marriage without bigotry, that doesn't mean that's what the Iona Institute is saying.
The fact you have to invent such an elaborate unrealistic and specific scenario to find a single instance for a non bigoted reason shows that the institute only has bigoted reasons.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With regards to adoption I've already said that I agree with the Association of Black Social Workers that it is not always racist.

They oppose mixed race marriage?

Daith · 04-02-2014 12:25PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never have said that gay people are different. Only that a woman/woman , man/man and man/woman are three different types of relationships.

Different in what way? Bar the obvious sex of each individual.

robindch · 04-02-2014 12:28PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Only that a woman/woman , man/man and man/woman are three different types of relationships.

So what? While every person's relationship is different, there are broad similarities in successful ones.

Лев Толстой, Анна Каренин&#1072 wrote:

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Corkfeen · 04-02-2014 12:30PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

It didn't even study same sex parenting, he misrepresented to forward the goals of a conservative think tank. Received over 700k from the Witherspoon Institute. So nope,not a witch hunt. He was highly corrupt in much the same way as Andrew Wakefield.

swampgas · 04-02-2014 12:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. All of this global publicity would normally cost waaaaay more than 85k.

I am loving this twist of fate.

I imagine that any future opinion pieces by the Iona crew will be getting a little more scrutiny than they might be used to. Let's see if they are brave enough to maintain their nasty little line of prejudice in the full glare of the international spotlight.

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:34PM

vitani wrote: »

Then why are you in a thread entitled 'Iona vs Panti'? Surely, at some point over the last few days, in between your many, many posts on here, you could have taken the time to learn about them?

Not enough to speak on behalf of them.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:34PM

Discussing homophobia on Radio 1 now.

Paddy O Gorman has moved from interviewing SW recipients outside the Dole Office to interviewing the gays (men only) outside a gay bar.

:rolleyes:

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. All of this global publicity would normally cost waaaaay more than 85k.

I am loving this twist of fate.

It's almost as if the lord is working in mysterious ways. Almost. *insert Garth Brooks reference to unanswered prayers here*.

Penn · 04-02-2014 12:36PM

David Quinn one week after getting compensation from RTE, but huge amounts of negative press

Brown Bomber · 04-02-2014 12:37PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But you are using that 'difference' to argue that man/man and woman/woman is lesser than man/woman - there is a word for that.

Not at all. Only that we are entering into unchartered territory. If long-term studieds with a large sample showed that adopted children of lesbians, for example were better adjusted and happier then lesbian adopters would be my ideal. It has nothing to do with sexuality of the parents but the implications these different types of relationship would have on an innocent child.

Delirium · 04-02-2014 12:43PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all. Only that we are entering into unchartered territory. If long-term studieds with a large sample showed that adopted children of lesbians, for example were better adjusted and happier then lesbian adopters would be my ideal. It has nothing to do with sexuality of the parents but the implications these different types of relationship would have on an innocent child.

what sort of implications on the child do you have concerns about?

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:46PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all. Only that we are entering into unchartered territory. If long-term studieds with a large sample showed that adopted children of lesbians, for example were better adjusted and happier then lesbian adopters would be my ideal. It has nothing to do with sexuality of the parents but the implications these different types of relationship would have on an innocent child.

Sorry - that highlighted bit- what?

To answer what I think you are saying - Why do they have to be 'better' adjusted?

Should there be studies that show that the children of mixed race couples are 'better' adjusted before we allow it???

And stop all of this 'innocent child' crap - it has deeply offensive undertones and you know it as you are not a stupid man.

What about the 'innocent child' born to alcoholic heterosexuals?
What about the 'innocent child' born to Jehovah Witnesses?
What about the 'Innocent child' born black in a majority white country?

There are over 30 years of studies FFS.

Do you think an 'innocent child' should be deprived of the security of two legally recognised parents because of the sexual orientation of those parents - no other reason?

Yes or No.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 12:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry - that highlighted bit- what?

To answer what I think you are saying - Why do they have to be 'better' adjusted?

Should there be studies that show that the children of mixed race couples are 'better' adjusted before we allow it???

And stop all of this 'innocent child' crap - it has deeply offensive undertones and you know it as you are not a stupid man.

What about the 'innocent child' born to alcoholic heterosexuals?
What about the 'innocent child' born to Jehovah Witnesses?
What about the 'Innocent child' born black in a majority white country?

There are over 30 years of studies FFS.

Do you think an 'innocent child' should be deprived of the security of two legally recognised parents because of the sexual orientation of those parents - no other reason?

Yes or No.

that's actually a great point, it's child abuse to deny a child medical help.

04-02-2014 12:49PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all. Only that we are entering into unchartered territory. If long-term studieds with a large sample showed that adopted children of lesbians, for example were better adjusted and happier then lesbian adopters would be my ideal. It has nothing to do with sexuality of the parents but the implications these different types of relationship would have on an innocent child.

Why do you think its uncharted territory?

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 12:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you think its uncharted territory?

"unchartered territory" aka the future

swampgas · 04-02-2014 12:50PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all. Only that we are entering into unchartered territory.

There's a massive difference between "stuff I don't know much about" and "uncharted territory".

Seriously, you might do some research before making statements like that.

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:52PM

I hadn't a clue what kind of parent I would be before I popped my sprogs. 99.9% of parents are totally winging it 99.9% of the time.

No one is guaranteed to be a good, bad or indifferent parent, be they the natural parents, adoptive parents or whatever led them to parenthood. There is no test you have to take before, during or after having children to determine your effect on a child.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 12:54PM

SW wrote: »

what sort of implications on the child do you have concerns about?

The "innocent" child - don't forget the deliberately emotive language being used in order to make implicit suggestions.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:54PM

lazygal wrote: »

I hadn't a clue what kind of parent I would be before I popped my sprogs. 99.9% of parents are totally winging it 99.9% of the time.

No one is guaranteed to be a good, bad or indifferent parent, be they the natural parents, adoptive parents or whatever led them to parenthood. There is no test you have to take before, during or after having children to determine your effect on a child.

Unless you are gay apparently then everybody gets to have an opinion.

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unless you are gay apparently then everybody gets to have an opinion.

But you're trying to destroy this!

Delirium · 04-02-2014 12:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry - that highlighted bit- what?

To answer what I think you are saying - Why do they have to be 'better' adjusted?

Should there be studies that show that the children of mixed race couples are 'better' adjusted before we allow it???

And stop all of this 'innocent child' crap - it has deeply offensive undertones and you know it as you are not a stupid man.

What about the 'innocent child' born to alcoholic heterosexuals?
What about the 'innocent child' born to Jehovah Witnesses?
What about the 'Innocent child' born black in a majority white country?

There are over 30 years of studies FFS.

Do you think an 'innocent child' should be deprived of the security of two legally recognised parents because of the sexual orientation of those parents - no other reason?

Yes or No.

"Not enough conclusive data". "needs further study". Repeat ad infinitum :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:56PM

lazygal wrote: »

But you're trying to destroy this!

Did Divorce and Women's Lib not already do that?

Iona vs Panti

Comments