Prime Time tonight

mollzer

Prime Time are doing a piece on the Civil Partnership Bill tonight.

Should be interesting.

Marshy

Just finished up there. Nothing really profound to come from it in all honesty. Ailbhe Smyth spoke well I thought though.

David Quinn seems to be one who always appears on the the Church's side for these RTÉ debates.

ninety6days

david quinn is unpleaseantly good at warping language.

cotwold

Ailbhe Smyth was good,as always, shes very well spoken. I didnt think it was all that profound either.

Im so frustrated by this phrase "ideal environment" being thrown around by the church. They using it to openly elevate that status of hetrosexual marriage above all others. I really dont see why they're still being invited to the debates, they've no place there.

a-ha

I think the argument that heterosexual marriages are "ideal" should be countered as follows:

If you believe that then you must believe that a person's biological sex determines how good a parent they are?

If so, then you must believe women are better parents than men or vice versa? (I don't)

If not, then why does the sex of the parents matter, sure two women parents, two men or two opposite sex parents may be "ideal" or not depending on the families involved.

mollzer

Ailbhe spoke very well, didnt like the other guy, David, he never made eye contact with Ailbhe during the interview.
The church is such an old mans club! to think of all thats happening in our country regarding violence, murder, child abuse, banks etc etc and the primate of the Irish Catholic church is giving out about something positive like 2 people making a commitment to each other!

It would be more Jesus like if he spread the 'good word' than spreading hate!!
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs but why try to push those beliefs on civil rights.
Our government is supposed to represent all peoples regardless of religion/beliefs.
Its about time the Catholic church butted out of government business!

rainbow kirby

David Quinn makes me want to punch him in the face, repeatedly. Such a smug bastard. His article in the Indo today was the same crap that he was spouting on Prime Time.

shay_562

rainbow kirby wrote:

David Quinn makes me want to punch him in the face, repeatedly.

Word. Just read that piece in the Indo and it's mental - a huge part of his case rests on the rise in divorce figures over the last few years, which he doesn't seem to notice have occured without gay marraige being in place. It's also interesting that he doesn't cite figures from any of the many countries that have already introduced gay marraige showing the huge increase in crime, divorce and general societal values that he predicts (probably because it didn't happen in any of them).

Gotta say, though, I do love his references to the sinister "gay agenda". It's so nice to feel like I'm a part of something that puts such fear into social conservatices! Though I do wonder how he found out about our secret plans to destabilise all heterosexual marraige and steal children right out from under their birth parents (as opposed to, say, adopting children who have no parents, or hiring surrogates - what fun would that be when there's a heteropatriarchy to undermine?). Perhaps we should move our Secret Gay Agenda meetings to a more secret location?

aDeener

Gays getting married, what will they think of next? the idea

mobius42

shay_562 wrote: »

Gotta say, though, I do love his references to the sinister "gay agenda". It's so nice to feel like I'm a part of something that puts such fear into social conservatices! Though I do wonder how he found out about our secret plans to destabilise all heterosexual marraige and steal children right out from under their birth parents (as opposed to, say, adopting children who have no parents, or hiring surrogates - what fun would that be when there's a heteropatriarchy to undermine?). Perhaps we should move our Secret Gay Agenda meetings to a more secret location?

Gay Agenda? There's an app for that!

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=324316214&mt=8

brandodub

shay_562 wrote: »

Word. Just read that piece in the Indo and it's mental - a huge part of his case rests on the rise in divorce figures over the last few years, which he doesn't seem to notice have occured without gay marraige being in place. It's also interesting that he doesn't cite figures from any of the many countries that have already introduced gay marraige showing the huge increase in crime, divorce and general societal values that he predicts (probably because it didn't happen in any of them).

Gotta say, though, I do love his references to the sinister "gay agenda". It's so nice to feel like I'm a part of something that puts such fear into social conservatices! Though I do wonder how he found out about our secret plans to destabilise all heterosexual marraige and steal children right out from under their birth parents (as opposed to, say, adopting children who have no parents, or hiring surrogates - what fun would that be when there's a heteropatriarchy to undermine?). Perhaps we should move our Secret Gay Agenda meetings to a more secret location?

Ah Yes Mr. Quinn.Entitled to his opinion of course and will enforce it given half a chance.I'm betting the 'Golden Days' of church / state relations is really what he's attempting to reinstate.Assuming of course that they've ended.

mobius42

Considering all of the horrible things that have come to light about the era when the Catholic Church pretty much ruled society, I cannot understand peoples' desire to return to the values of that period. Why do the Iona Institute want a "Catholic Society"? Hasn't that caused enough damage to the country already?