Iona vs Panti

Penn · 22-02-2014 01:43PM

Will the interview be released as a podcast or listenable anywhere?

aloyisious · 22-02-2014 01:47PM

Validly observing that an amount of the rhetoric descends into MOPEry, when all they're really doing is explaining that they've shared reasonably common human experiences LOL. Tut tut, as if she would peer at a looking-glass and say "mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all"?

aloyisious · 22-02-2014 01:51PM

Penn wrote: »

Will the interview be released as a podcast or listenable anywhere?

It'll probably be included on a podcast on RTE of the Marian Finucane Show tomorrow (it seem's to take RTE about a day to put up programme podcasts).

MrPudding · 22-02-2014 01:55PM

aloyisious wrote: »

It's interesting to know that Breda's not a member of Iona, just a patron, that it's not solely Catholic, it has Protestants and non-believers in it's membership. I'm wondering if she's implying that the non-believing members of Iona are in agreement with her Catholic view of marriage.

If I meet Breda I have several questions for her, re her belief that marriage is absolutely linked to the procreation of children.

1. Does she think that married couples using prophylaxics are not truly married in
her eyes, as they are preventing the issue of children?

2. Does she think that couples preparing to be married should be tested to see if
either partner is barren/sterile; and if so, should not be allowed marry the
O/P?

3. Does she believe married female rape victims must be refused prophylactic aids,
as they are is an anti-pregnancy measure, thereby preventing the issue of
child/ren?

In using the term married in my questions, I'm referring to heterosexual couples/people, as Breda has already ruled out allowing civil marriage to homosexual couples (male or female) on the grounds of her belief that the marriage cannot be consummated in the traditional manner. The best way to fight Breda is to push her into a corner of her own making in a debate and use her quotes against her. Let her tear down her curtain and reveal to our fellow straight citizens, in her own words, that she will not allow them get married if they have planned marriages outside her view of marriage-norms.

There is no point in an angry rant against Breda as I believe that that is exactly what would suit her side of any debate, to point the finger and say; "see what I mean, they will not debate the topic in a lucid manner, they are full of hate and wish to shout me down".

At he risk of appearing to be trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but how familiar are you with this view of marriage? I did a dissertation on same sex marriage, from a jurisprudential perspective, and I came across this view frequently. By defining marriage in a particular way, the proponent of this view argue that they are being discriminatory. It is actually quite clever, in some respects, though I personally don't think it stands up to scrutiny. The position can be summarises quite simply. If a person is incapable of taking advantage of a "thing" then how can it be discrimination to restrict their access to it. A useful analogy would be, is it discrimination for the government not to offer me, a man, free cervical smear tests? The issue is, of course, that their logic is only valid if one accepts their definition of marriage in the first place. If you don't it makes little sense.

If you are interested in reading more about this argument have a look at this paper:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Robert George is a fairly well respected legal academic.

MrP

iwantmydinner · 22-02-2014 02:06PM

I honestly don't know how I'd react to meeting O'Brien or Quinn. I'd like to think I'd be articulate and sweep the rug from under them with my verbal smackdown.... But I have a feeling I'd just get angry and forget my words. And cry.

Also, I bristle at the use of the word 'debate', by anyone, in relation to the marriage equality referendum. Debate implies the existence of a legitimate opposing argument. I am satisfied that none such exists.

Nodin · 22-02-2014 02:31PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What's the point in a rewrite? Understanding the point just requires empathy. That's something you feel, rather than something you know.

I've often wondered if you were some sort of automated smug sneer that was programmed to post every so often......

Doctor DooM · 22-02-2014 02:39PM

Am I the only child with a single parent upbringing who's getting extremely tired of being insulted all the time by these people without them even realising it?

Breda. A hint. It doesn't really matter what configuration the people who bring you up do it. As long as they love you and encourage you.

aloyisious · 22-02-2014 02:45PM

MrPudding wrote: »

At he risk of appearing to be trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but how familiar are you with this view of marriage? I did a dissertation on same sex marriage, from a jurisprudential perspective, and I came across this view frequently. By defining marriage in a particular way, the proponent of this view argue that they are being discriminatory. It is actually quite clever, in some respects, though I personally don't think it stands up to scrutiny. The position can be summarises quite simply. If a person is incapable of taking advantage of a "thing" then how can it be discrimination to restrict their access to it. A useful analogy would be, is it discrimination for the government not to offer me, a man, free cervical smear tests? The issue is, of course, that their logic is only valid if one accepts their definition of marriage in the first place. If you don't it makes little sense.

If you are interested in reading more about this argument have a look at this paper:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

Robert George is a fairly well respected legal academic.

MrP

Post edited after review.....

If the point is that merely because a person has not been given (or is refused) an option or access to some existing device, that that person is not being discriminated-against, then the argument you post above is correct.

However, I'd posit an argument against the totality of that argument:

A citizen choosing to object to and deny another citizen access to a existing civil right he/she has access to (in this case, Civil Marriage) on the absolute ground of a personal religious-societal belief - that part of that right to civil marriage absolutely and necessarily involves the procreation of children, without which that right should NOT be given to the requestee/s.

That seem's to me to be a denial of equality before the law. That issue should be decided by referendum, as is proposed.

Zillah · 22-02-2014 03:06PM

Marian did well. Great job calling her out on saying people who oppose gay marriage felt unsafe, twice asking her to explain why she used that word, and letting her fail entirely both times. I was giggling the whole time.

Pherekydes · 22-02-2014 03:14PM

aloyisious wrote: »

It's interesting to know that Breda's not a member of Iona, just a patron, that it's not solely Catholic, it has Protestants and non-believers in it's membership. I'm wondering if she's implying that the non-believing members of Iona are in agreement with her Catholic view of marriage.

If I meet Breda I have several questions for her, re her belief that marriage is absolutely linked to the procreation of children.

1. Does she think that married couples using prophylaxics are not truly married in
her eyes, as they are preventing the issue of children?

2. Does she think that couples preparing to be married should be tested to see if
either partner is barren/sterile; and if so, should not be allowed marry the
O/P?

3. Does she believe married female rape victims must be refused prophylactic aids,
as they are is an anti-pregnancy measure, thereby preventing the issue of
child/ren?

While you're at it, will you ask her if the children of unmarried parents are bastards? And as such they should be discriminated against?

TIA.

aloyisious · 22-02-2014 03:37PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

While you're at it, will you ask her if the children of unmarried parents are bastards? And as such they should be discriminated against?

TIA.

Do you want me to ask about divorcees as well?

Zillah · 22-02-2014 03:40PM

I'm waiting in no small degree of frustration for someone to ask her directly if she opposes allowing infertile heterosexual couples to get married, and if not, why not? I can't see how she wouldn't just fall to pieces considering that the only thing she ever says when asked why she opposes same-sex marriage is that they can't have children.

Pherekydes · 22-02-2014 04:15PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you want me to ask about divorcees as well?

You may as well. I've done everything else, so divorce is hardly going to make it worse for me.

I wonder what she thinks of "non traditional" dressing?

The Sparrow · 22-02-2014 04:52PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Am I the only child with a single parent upbringing who's getting extremely tired of being insulted all the time by these people without them even realising it?

Breda. A hint. It doesn't really matter what configuration the people who bring you up do it. As long as they love you and encourage you.

As an adult who grew up in a one parent household due to a parent passing away when I was very young, I get extremely angry at this notion that not having one male and female parent is damaging to children.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether children grow up in a family with a male and female parent, two female or male parents, a single parent or any combination of grandparents or other family members or even adopted or foster parents. The only important thing is that the children grow up in a safe environment where they feel loved and appreciated and they are encouraged to reach their potential whilst also learning about values and how to treat other people.

And learning not to judge people by your own prejudices. Something that a lot of the Iona Institute etc could do with learning themselves.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 22-02-2014 05:41PM

oceanclub wrote: »

It also requires you to write in something resembling English. ("MOPEry"?)

P.

Gosh, not just a lack of empathy, but a lack of awareness of the island where the ".ie" hails from.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2006/05/05/mope_moping_and_mopery/

MOPE is an acronym that derives from the title of an essay written by Professor Liam Kennedy a few years back. It comes with the sub title: THE HISTORICAL SYNDROME OF THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE EVER. As a notional ‘syndrome’, it affects the capacity of otherwise rational individuals to see Northern Ireland’s problems in context with other global (and much more traumatic) events. It is rooted in the feeling that Ireland’s trauma is not like anyone else’s: it is deep and unto itself.<...>

Glad to be able to help by making these connections.

Nodin wrote: »

I've often wondered if you were some sort of automated smug sneer that was programmed to post every so often......

Your couldn't automate really effective sneers, of the kind that sting enough for people to comment specifically on their smugness. For that, you simply need empathy. Because androids don't dream of electric sheep.

Doctor DooM · 22-02-2014 06:47PM

The Sparrow wrote: »

As an adult who grew up in a one parent household due to a parent passing away when I was very young, I get extremely angry at this notion that not having one male and female parent is damaging to children.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether children grow up in a family with a male and female parent, two female or male parents, a single parent or any combination of grandparents or other family members or even adopted or foster parents. The only important thing is that the children grow up in a safe environment where they feel loved and appreciated and they are encouraged to reach their potential whilst also learning about values and how to treat other people.

And learning not to judge people by your own prejudices. Something that a lot of the Iona Institute etc could do with learning themselves.

A humourous aside- my step sister grew up with 2 loving dads and a mam. Does that mean she is some form of superchild in ionaland?

oceanclub · 22-02-2014 06:56PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Gosh, not just a lack of empathy, but a lack of awareness of the island where the ".ie" hails from.Glad to be able to help by making these connections.Your couldn't automate really effective sneers, of the kind that sting enough for people to comment specifically on their smugness. For that, you simply need empathy. Because androids don't dream of electric sheep.

So because some bloke coined a word based on an acronym a few years ago, an acronym I've never once seen used, I'm supposed to instantly understand it. And by some bizarre twist you imply I'm anti-Irish because I don't.

Go away, you eejit.

P.

lazygal · 22-02-2014 07:04PM

I bet Breda advocates adoption for women with unwanted pregnancies. Will she oppose the new bill allowing gay couples to adopt? Would it be better for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to have an abortion or have the child adopted by a gay couple? Should heterosexual couples be allowed preferential treatment or are single straight people better than gay couples? What about the biological parents who don't want the child, are they better parents than a gay couple who undergo invasive treatments to procreate? So many judgmental decisions, so little airtime.

Zillah · 22-02-2014 07:13PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Gosh, not just a lack of empathy, but a lack of awareness of the island where the ".ie" hails from.

You sound completely stoned. Like that guy at a party who doesn't realise he's talking nonsense.

Brian Shanahan · 22-02-2014 07:26PM

B0jangles wrote: »

She's on now and is NOT covering herself with glory. Overall I think it's good because Marian is calling her out on most of what she's saying.

I was listening to it on my way into Limerick for the Harty Cup final this morning and I had to turn the radio off it was so disgusting. If you didn't know what kind of homophobic ****es Iona were and were listening to her for the first time, you'd think they were a pro-LGBT organisation.

PopePalpatine · 22-02-2014 07:38PM

I've pointed it out before, Breda O'Brien has a Professor Umbridge-esque air about her.

B0jangles · 22-02-2014 07:38PM

The thing was that if you followed her line of thinking then you'd have to conclude that she was opposed to adoption and any form of aided conception where a donor egg or sperm are used.
By saying what she did, she will have alienated a lot of listeners who have no strong opinion on gay rights but who do feel strongly about adoption and parenthood via donors. That bit where she pretended to be a child given up for adoption asking "Why did you give me away mummy?" was so grossly offensive I doubt anyone who was listening could fail to see how toxic her views are.

I think "saccharin" is a good word to describe Ms. O'Brien's whole manner:

"Saccharin is an artificial sweetener.... much sweeter than sucrose, but has a bitter or metallic aftertaste, especially at high concentrations."

Brian Shanahan · 22-02-2014 08:02PM

aloyisious wrote: »

It's interesting to know that Breda's not a member of Iona, just a patron, that it's not solely Catholic, it has Protestants and non-believers in it's membership. I'm wondering if she's implying that the non-believing members of Iona are in agreement with her Catholic view of marriage.

I wonder how many non-catholics are actually members of an organisation who's sole goal is to restore the foot of the pontiff in its previous position on the face of Ireland crushing the life out of this country.

Nodin · 22-02-2014 08:57PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I wonder how many non-catholics are actually members of an organisation who's sole goal is to restore the foot of the pontiff in its previous position on the face of Ireland crushing the life out of this country.

...having met a (one, in my 44 years) "ex-catholic" who seemed to have (for no reason I could ascertain) retained the dogma but apparently dropped the religion I would not dismiss the possibility of there being at least one in there, human perversity being what it is.

Brian Shanahan · 22-02-2014 09:07PM

Nodin wrote: »

...having met a (one, in my 44 years) "ex-catholic" who seemed to have (for no reason I could ascertain) retained the dogma but apparently dropped the religion I would not dismiss the possibility of there being at least one in there, human perversity being what it is.

Oh, I'll grant you there'll always be one, but I honestly can't see too many non-catholics supporting something that wants to supress them, especially as most catholics would run a mile from an Ionaista if they saw one.

ne0ica · 22-02-2014 09:28PM

Panti is a joke. Who elected that freak spokesperson and chief for the gay community.

iwantmydinner · 22-02-2014 09:31PM

ne0ica wrote: »

Panti is a joke. Who elected that freak spokesperson and chief for the gay community.

Did you literally register just to spew that?

ne0ica · 22-02-2014 09:43PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Did you literally register just to spew that?

Spew what. If the character panti was created as the new gay character in say fair city people here would decry it as a homophobic stereotype

Delirium · 22-02-2014 09:46PM

ne0ica wrote: »

Spew what. If the character panti was created as the new gay character in say fair city people here would decry it as a homophobic stereotype

iwantmydinner · 22-02-2014 09:50PM

ne0ica wrote: »

Spew what. If the character panti was created as the new gay character in say fair city people here would decry it as a homophobic stereotype

Sorry, I should have been clearer, apparently. You were spewing bile. Calling someone a freak would generally fall into the bilious category.

Iona vs Panti

Comments