Iona vs Panti

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

No, the mammy and daddy thing was on the homosexual agenda. Did you not get the memo? No one will want to be mammies and daddies if the gays can get hitched. Even if there are or are not childer. If the gays can get married I won't want to be married any more. Like the way no one got married after the introduction of divorce.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 01:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

The ironic thing is that marriage is actually dieing and that marriage equality campaigns are actually strengthening it.

robindch · 04-02-2014 01:04PM

If the problem is with these men and women who are producing gay offspring after heterosexual sex, then there's a simple solution -- ban heterosexual sex.

I'm surprised Quinn isn't out there promoting that.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 01:08PM

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 exactly what I was talking about previously. BB does what David Quinn and Breda O'Brien do. He prefaces comments with agreeable statements but then this will be followed by a completely underhanded comment. Notice his use of 'innocent' throughout this thread. It's an implicit smear tactic. There's an implied suggestion that gay parents will take away a childs innocence and this couldn't happen with 2 heterosexual parents.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:16PM

lazygal wrote: »

No, the mammy and daddy thing was on the homosexual agenda. Did you not get the memo? No one will want to be mammies and daddies if the gays can get hitched. Even if there are or are not childer. If the gays can get married I won't want to be married any more. Like the way no one got married after the introduction of divorce.

I can't keep up with the heterosexual lifestyle thing at all.

They just seem so casual about popping out the babbies and the wife swapping and work place affairs and the separating and divorcing shure those hetro marriages should have revolving doors.

I was in Patrick Street one Saturday night and it was crowded with flamboyant straights roaring mating calls at each other when they weren't fighting or vomiting or getting arrested and I thought to myself - well, there goes the fabric* of society.

Now, I'm not hetrophobic - some of my best friends are straight and some of them even have childer and some of them even meant to have childer - but my heart goes out to those innocent childer . It really does. Imagine growing up with no dress sense or appreciation of art and design and then having to endure the straight mating rituals.

*The fabric in question seemed to be a polyester/lycra mix...*shudder*.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 01:23PM

if we're effectively doubling the marriage rate by allowing ssm what affect will that have on traffic ?

lazygal · 04-02-2014 01:24PM

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the civil marriage registration system.

Obliq · 04-02-2014 01:28PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.... some of my best friends are straight and some of them even have childer and some of them even meant to have childer - but my heart goes out to those innocent childer . It really does. Imagine growing up with no dress sense or appreciation of art and design and then having to endure the straight mating rituals.

*The fabric in question seemed to be a polyester/lycra mix...*shudder*.

Making me smile, thanks! Speaking for myself only (but as a bit of a raging hetero diva), I didn't quite mean to have children myself, but now they're here and I'm bringing them up to the best of my effed-up hetero ability. What you have outlined up there has often made me hope slyly that at least one of my boys is gay so I don't have to endure too many years of the f*cking enhanced tits n hair brigade stumbling through my kitchen in 4" heels and dodgy lycra.

*shuffles off again to listen to more Anthony and the Johnsons* (- and if BB isn't more careful about the lives he treads on with his "I'm all for equality, but...." crap, I'll post a proper tear jerker of a song)

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 01:28PM

lazygal wrote: »

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the civil marriage registration system.

total chaos!

kylith · 04-02-2014 01:29PM

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"?

Would you not think that the idea that gay people will abuse a child is homophobic?

If you're talking about bullying, well my parents shouldn't have been allowed to have me if they were going to leave me open to abuse by letting me read books and watch sci-fi, and I should certainly have been removed for my own safety when they gave me a name that could be rhymed with something insulting.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 01:29PM

lads will be duping oul farmers into marrying them and taking their farms!

Obliq · 04-02-2014 01:31PM

and marrying our girlfriends!
Oh, wait.........

lazygal · 04-02-2014 01:32PM

Sure if gays can get married we might as well let people marry their farms.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:33PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

lads will be duping oul farmers into marrying them and taking their farms!

Ohhhh...I'd like a bit of land... need to find me a landowning widow woman...!

Qs · 04-02-2014 01:34PM

kylith wrote: »

and I should certainly have been removed for my own safety when they gave me a name that could be rhymed with something insulting.

Mulva?

Penn · 04-02-2014 01:37PM

lazygal wrote: »

Sure if gays can get married we might as well let people marry their farms.

vitani · 04-02-2014 01:39PM

kylith wrote: »

Would you not think that the idea that gay people will abuse a child is homophobic?

If you're talking about bullying, well my parents shouldn't have been allowed to have me if they were going to leave me open to abuse by letting me read books and watch sci-fi, and I should certainly have been removed for my own safety when they gave me a name that could be rhymed with something insulting.

Yours too?

I'm still in therapy for it. They also didn't think about the possible effects their genes would have when combined together to form my nose. Hence, a (thankfully) brief period of me being called Pinocchio in school.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:42PM

Qs wrote: »

Mulva?

Heh heh - I'm not the only one trying to work it out ...

lazygal · 04-02-2014 01:46PM

My parents never got me a Mr Frosty. No one knows the burden of this. They also dressed me and my younger sister the same. Maybe gay parents would've had more fashion sense. But then again it was the eighties.

Qs · 04-02-2014 01:47PM

My parents bought me a girls bike for Christmas one year. And yet somehow they were allowed to have 2 more children.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:49PM

lazygal wrote: »

My parents never got me a Mr Frosty. No one knows the burden of this. They also dressed me and my younger sister the same. Maybe gay parents would've had more fashion sense. But then again it was the eighties.

You would have been dressed mostly out of Next. It was compulsory for the children of gays in the 80s. As were ickle 501s and Dr Martens or really cool trainers.

lazygal · 04-02-2014 01:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You would have been dressed mostly out of Next. It was compulsory for the children of gays in the 80s. As were ickle 501s and Dr Martens or really cool trainers.

I did have docs at one stage. Maybe they had a whiff of the ghey.

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 01:52PM

It's amazing though that the minute this gets to the "international embarrassment" stage i.e. it's appearing in some international publications and it's being mentioned in the European Parliament, then the Irish 'traditional' media wakes up...

lazygal · 04-02-2014 01:53PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's amazing though that the minute this gets to the "international embarrassment" stage i.e. it's appearing in some international publications and it's being mentioned in the European Parliament, then the Irish 'traditional' media wakes up...

Yet Garth Brooks selling out Croke Park makes the radio one newsslots.

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 01:56PM

I should be fair and say it did get some coverage, just not really the kind I think it would have had in the UK for example if the BBC had a similar incident.

I always find it quite amusing how RTE talks about itself in the 3rd party on the news though

david75 · 04-02-2014 02:06PM

Am I reading this right? Kids of gay parents potentially being bullied because they have two daddies, as a reason to disallow gay marriage?

Barrels are being scraped right through to their last thread

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 02:09PM

david75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right? Kids of gay parents potentially being bullied because they have two daddies, as a reason to disallow gay marriage?

Barrels are being scraped right through to their last thread

Oh, that particular red herring is older than the hills.

robindch · 04-02-2014 02:11PM

lazygal wrote: »

Sure if gays can get married we might as well let people marry their farms.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "He's in the barn".

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 02:18PM

robindch wrote: »

Brings new meaning to the phrase "He's in the barn".

'It's a nice barn English but it ain't no marriage.'

Beruthiel · 04-02-2014 02:31PM

Just got a stock response to the e-mail I sent last week to the BAI:

Dear Ms. Beruthiel,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your email about The Saturday Night Show on RTÉ 1 television.

Due to the large number of complaints received about this programme, our reply to your email will deal with all of the main issues raised by those who have written to us on this matter. The main elements of complaints received so far relate to:-

1) The statement read on The Saturday Night Show on the 25th January, in response to the original broadcast aired on 11th;

2) Reports that RTÉ has paid compensation in respect of comments included in the programme of 11th January;

3) The re-editing of the programme of 11th January, currently available on the RTÉ Player;

4) The reference to journalist, Mr. John Waters, as a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI).

The statement provided during the programme broadcast on the 25th January is the only element of the complaints received that the BAI can address. The other issues relate to operational decisions made by RTÉ or relate to content held online. In both cases, the BAI has no regulatory role and these are matters for RTÉ and its Board of Management. Regarding Mr. John Waters, please note that Mr. Waters is no longer a serving member of the BAI. The BAI issued a statement following his resignation and this can be viewed here: http://www.bai.ie/?p=4290

The BAI can consider complaints against any programme, as aired, and if you believe that the statement broadcast on the 25th January infringed the requirements of the Broadcasting Act and/or the BAI’s broadcasting codes, then it is open to you to make a complaint. Information on the complaints process is set out below:

• If you have not already sent your complaint to RTÉ, please note that it is the BAI’s policy to direct complainants to the relevant broadcaster in the first place. Complaints must be submitted to the broadcaster within 30 days of the date on which the programme was aired. The broadcaster should then respond within the timeframe specified in their Code of Practice for Complaints Handling, which is 20 working days in the case of complaints sent to RTÉ. Please allow this period of time for a response. A copy of the RTÉ Code of Practice for Complaints Handling can be found here: http://www.rte.ie/about/en/information-and-feedback/complaints/2012/0222/291660-complaints-procedure/.

.

• If you are not satisfied with the response from the broadcaster and/or the broadcaster does not respond to your complaint within the timeframe specified in their Code of Practice for Complaints Handling, you may then refer your complaint to the BAI. You are asked to refer any complaints within 14 days following this period by completing the attached referral form and indicating clearly the section/s of the Broadcasting Act/BAI Codes you believe, in this case, that the statement broadcast has breached. Information on the complaints handling process, including a copy of the complaint referral form, can be found here: http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=115.

• In the case of those complaint referrals which have already been submitted to the BAI for consideration, these will now be processed in line with the procedures detailed in our Guide to the Complaints Handling Process.

Further responses to the BAI should be addressed to complaints@bai.ie.

I trust this information is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Neil O’Brien

Head, Compliance

Will they actually do anything about RTE coughing up 85k of our license fees without even going to court?

Iona vs Panti

Comments