Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Brian Shanahan

eisseb wrote: »

The Latter

why so homophobic?

Going Strong

Pherekydes wrote: »

Mullen was on Newstalk's Lunchtime trying to justify his position. When the other guest, whose name I didn't catch, asked him directly as to why he shouldn't be treated equally, Mullen claimed the gay guy was trying to demonise him.

He also claimed that withholding equality was good for society in certain cases, such as children not having the vote.

So there you have it, nine months of abortive drivel from the feeble minded to look forward to.

They really do pick the brightest and best from amongst our population to sit in The Seanad don't they?

lazygal

Going Strong wrote: »

They really do pick the brightest and best from amongst our population to sit in The Seanad don't they?

Mullen didn't vote himself into the seanad, in fairness. He was elected, not appointed.

lynski

lazygal wrote: »

Mullen didn't vote himself into the seanad, in fairness. He was elected, not appointed.

By the borough with the catholic college in it, no coincidence of course. though they did not vote him into europe.

So another single catholic man who has never worked outside hallowed grounds or education is talking about marriage and raising children, like an expert or something, any surprise?

Dades

eisseb wrote: »

I don't want to even think about gay relationships

Not sure how you got back in but you won't be back here.

/nuke

Cabaal

lynski wrote: »

So another single catholic man who has never worked outside hallowed grounds or education is talking about marriage and raising children, like an expert or something, any surprise?

In fairness its perfectly in keeping with all the people in the catholic church high up positions that tell people whats right or wrong about marriage, children and sex.

PopePalpatine

Dades wrote: »

Not sure how you got back in but you won't be back here.

/nuke

Your post just reminded me who this poster was.

It must be sad, being them, wanting to inflict such misery upon others.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/04/look-me-in-the-eyes-and-tell-me-why-i-cant-marry/

Labour TD John Lyons (left), who is gay, Independent Senator Ronan Mullen, who is not, took part in an ‘opening debate’ [chaired by Ciara McDonagh on Newstalk today] ahead of next Spring’s same sex marriage referendum.

We join the debate after Mr Lyons’ pro same-sex submission.

Ciara McCDonagh: “Senator Ronan Mullen has joined us. Ronan, is it fair to say you are against marriage equality and why?”

Ronan Mullen: “That’s where we have to start, getting the language right so that we have a respectful debate. There are hundreds of thousands of people Ciara in this country who see that marriage equality is itself a loaded term, who see that this is a debate about whether we should keep the current definition of marriage or whether we should change it. Equality is a great thing, but, you know the mere use of the word equality can take us into situations that don’t work at all, so for example you take for example you know under age persons who are completely equal in dignity and right to protection of law and in every respect for example a crime against a child is actually worse than a crime against an adult in most people’s eyes but for example there isn’t absolute equality in terms of voting rights in that situation because an issue of maturity arises in that situation.”

McDonagh: “But that’s slightly different, you’re talking about equality of adults…”

Mullen: “Of course it’s slightly different and this is where we have to get our issues clear and this is where journalists like yourself will, will really have to engage with the hard questions for both sides on a day to day basis. I have to say coming off a European election campaign this isn’t the burning issue for Irish society. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t deal with it, but I suppose on a day to day basis this isn’t the issue I’m dealing with with people whose kids have been forced to emigrate, who cant earn a decent living…”

McDonagh: “Well, that’s fair enough but the Taoiseach has announced it is going to happen in spring so we’re going to have to debate it now, the onus is on the politicians and the media to air all these arguments, so what we want to know is why you’re not in favour of marriage equality.”

Mullen: “No I want you to stop using marriage equality because that’s a biased term.”

McCDonagh: “Well why would you be opposed to this referendum?”

Mullen: “Would you ask me why do I support the current definition of marriage, are you happy with that formulation?”

McDonagh: “If the referendum gives people in same sex relationships the right to get married why are you against that, can you sum it up?”

Mullen: “Simply because I favour the current definition of marriage, it’s not the biggest issue for me, it’s easy for me to say yes to what everybody wants. I just have to say in all honesty and having looked at the issues as they come up from time to time that I believe that current definition of marriage has a particular social role, the role that is around the protection of children and that is why I am from the start inviting the media to ensure the highest debate. You have to realise that there are hundreds of thousands if not more decent people in our country…”

McDonagh: “There are millions of decent people.”

Mullen: “If you don’t turn it into a debating argument with me we will get more answers. The point I was trying to make, I haven’t finished the sentence, is that there are at least hundreds of thousands of decent people who have loved ones who may be in same sex relationships, for example, but who don’t feel they have to change their stance on whether marriage should be allowed or not.”

McDonagh: “But we have to give them the option of deciding it.”

Mullen: “The people? Yes, those people, and I think many of those people will take the view that the definition of marriage works for a particular social reason, that the meaning of marriage itself has to do with the relationship between men and women because that is a socially preferred context for the upbringing of children. With great respect for other situations, that something we want to protect.”

McCDonagh: “So you’re talking about people in same-sex relationships, gay and lesbian people being parents, that sort of thing? And possibly you’re raising concerns about that children in that situation? What evidence do you have that there’s any negative effect on those children?”

Mullen: “No you’re putting words in my mouth, you probably are putting words in my mouth because if you look what the current Constitution currently says there is a reason why marriage has been defined in a particular way and the definition of marriage, it seems to me what our Constitution says is that the State pledges to guard with special care the definition of marriage on which the family is founded there is this idea that the family is somehow founded on marriage.”

McDonagh: “Ok, but Ronan, because we don’t have a lot of time here, do you have any evidence that same-sex marriage will have an impact on the family?”

Mullen: “The first impact that same sex marriage would have, or redefining marriage..”

McDonagh: “But on the family?”

Mullen: “Just let me finish. Let me finish the point please.”

McDonagh: “Just asking the question.”

Mullen: “What I have noticed already is that you haven’t been cross-examining John in the same way, and I’m trying to take the media on a journey here, it’s a journey…”

McDonagh: “John and I had a few minutes before you got here.”

Mullen: “And did you grill him?”

McDonagh: “Yes. Did you hear it?”

Mullen: “No, but..”

McDonagh: “We’re very short on time Ronan.”

Mullen: “No I’m going to answer your first question. The definition of marriage works because the international supported evidence is that the, the preferred context, with great respect for other situations is the two biological parents. That’s what the data says. I think we lose this if we go changing the definition of marriage that may, frankly, deprive a child of their rights starting off. We can’t go talking about children’s rights after they’re born if we don’t care about the circumstances in which they’re brought into the world.”

McDonagh: “Right. Ronan, one more question. John is sitting across the table from you. He currently doesn’t have the opportunity to marry the person he loves. Can you tell me why, and why that should be the case.”

Mullen: “Well…”

Lyons: “You can try and look at me, Ronan, when you answer it. I’m a human being, I’m a human being here.”

Mullen: “Don’t demonise me, John. I smile at you and address you every day of the week in Leinster house, and what I’m not going to let happen during this debate, no matter whom I debate it with, good people like you John and Ciara and anybody else, ‘m going to insist on professionalism on all sides and I’m also going to insist that nobody’s demonised. The suggestion that I can’t look you in the eye and smile at me is a lie, John, because I’ve always treated you with the utmost courtesy.You’ve come to my door canvassing a vote and Ive always treated you with the utmost courtesy. So please don’t try to send out a message or paint…”

Lyons: “I most certainly wouldn’t Ronan. I think you know me better than that.”

Mullen: “No I don’t you see, and I’m trying to set down the ground rules for this debate to make sure it has to be respectful. I’m a tough nut, you see, and I’m not doing this for myself, I’m doing this to make sure decent people aren’t frightened out of this debate because they’re being made to look like bad people….”

McDonagh: “That’s something I raised with John before you came in and I’m going to ask you it as well. The tone of this debate, we have about nine months, what are we going to do to make sure that it doesn’t descend into accusations of homophobia?”

Mullen: “Well that’s out of the question now because we know that that’s libellous, presumably we’ve learned from what happened in RTE…”

Listen here http://newstalk.ie/Opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

Mullen was pathetic during the whole exchange this is without question,

He can't get into a meaningful debate because he has no evidence, he can't even give one straight answer,

I've no doubt that Mullen and others will bring lawsuits against people before this vote happens, the threats are already starting.

PopePalpatine

Oh, and he started whinging about being called "homophobic".

I wonder if the likes of the Dixiecrats whinged about being called "racist" during the fight for equality for non-whites in the USA.

aloyisious

Studio-time wasting piece for the interviewer and J Lyons with footwork by Mr Mullen, knight and defender of the respectful people (which will be believed). I wonder who "schooled/scripted " him. Nice that he himself ruled out the question of asking people about homophobia, that can be used against him if he raises a hint of personal homophobia and/or get's involved in any homophobia law case, a public statement fixing his position about the topic.

But there's this in the Mullen/Lyons exchange, he does exactly what he asks John NOT to do - demonizing and painting people - with this; (R Mullen: “Don’t demonise me, John lyons: “I most certainly wouldn’t Ronan. I think you know me better than that.” Mullen: “No I don’t.) followed by the "decent people - frightened - bad people" quotes in the last Para below. The "good people like you and Ciara" mask slip's compared with the above quotes.

Mullen: “Don’t demonise me, John. I smile at you and address you every day of the week in Leinster house, and what I’m not going to let happen during this debate, no matter whom I debate it with, good people like you John and Ciara and anybody else, ‘m going to insist on professionalism on all sides and I’m also going to insist that nobody’s demonised. The suggestion that I can’t look you in the eye and smile at me is a lie, John, because I’ve always treated you with the utmost courtesy. You’ve come to my door canvassing a vote and Ive always treated you with the utmost courtesy. So please don’t try to send out a message or paint…”

Lyons: “I most certainly wouldn’t Ronan. I think you know me better than that.”

Mullen: “No I don’t you see, and I’m trying to set down the ground rules for this debate to make sure it has to be respectful. I’m a tough nut, you see, and I’m not doing this for myself, I’m doing this to make sure decent people aren’t frightened out of this debate because they’re being made to look like bad people….”

It open's the door for the question of what/whom he defines as decent people. So hit him up with that defining question until he blow's and gives a clear and simple "H" quote/statement recorded in sound/vision and "at-the-moment" writing.

lynski

aloyisious wrote: »

It open's the door for the question of what/whom he defines as decent people. So hit him up with that defining question until he blow's and gives a clear and simple "H" quote/statement recorded in sound/vision and "at-the-moment" writing.

Agreed, he is also open to the question of what exactly he is 'protecting' potential children from by defending our most current version of marriage.

I was fuming listening to this, and i have to admit his was a masterful performance; he turned from demon to demonised, victimiser to victim, or bully to bullied, take your pick. (yes i do think denying civil rights to people for religious reasons is demonic/victimising/bulling and this is my opinion only, not that of boards or any of its associated companies)
This idea of defining the word marriage is ludicrous; marriage in ireland today does not always mean the christian definition (arranged marriage, multiple marriage (1 civil others religious) , visa marriage all happen here and all happen here and are facilitated by various religions)
So when even the current version of marriage is not universal it cannot be defined or categorised or legislated for.
It is also the current version of marriage, the current one was not always thus. It has changed over the years and while i am sure nowadays a priest might balk at marrying a weeping girl to a man of her father's choosing it is not that long ago that this occurred.
It is in my lifetime that 14 yr olds were married in our town, under the age of consent and majority but with the blessing of god and bishop.
It was not so long ago marriage was for usually for property, land, money, prestige - not for love or children.
Marriage has changed fundamentally in our lifetimes; women enter it equally now, they cannot be beaten or raped within it, they cannot be denied inheritance, they can acquire contraception if they wish, they can continue to work. These changes only happened in the past 30 yrs, so marriage moves with the times, changes with the times and society.
Society wants it to change, indeed many people are unaware that it has not changed, many think civil partnership s the same thing and have accepted it as such for a number of years.

[TL:DR] Marriage has already changed.

Time the law recognised that fact of life and move on.
Just a pity that the referendum commission requires 'balanced' views and publication so we will be subjected to equal exposure to the views of what is a tiny minority.

Nodin

Mullen: “Well that’s out of the question now because we know that that’s libellous, presumably we’ve learned from what happened in RTE…”

The learned senator seems to be confusing a payout with a court ruling.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Mullen: “Well that’s out of the question now because we know that that’s libellous, presumably we’ve learned from what happened in RTE…”

The learned senator seems to be confusing a payout with a court ruling.

Could have the same effect though . In any case we should run a mile from using any kind of invective . Stay reasonable at all times . Very hard to beat reasonable.

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

Stay reasonable at all times . Very hard to beat reasonable.

I don't disagree; but I don't consider it unreasonable to call out homophobia when I see it.

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree; but I don't consider it unreasonable to call out homophobia when I see it.

Depends on whether you want to win the battle or the war . I for one had years of losing these things and refusing to learn from the opposition .

The only people the homophobes convince is their fellow travellers , nothing is gained by engaging with them in a slanging match , which is just what they want by the way.

aloyisious

The secret is not in keeping up a reasonable front at al times in the face of the likes of Mr Mullen , it's in making the likes of Mr Mullen show their unreasonable side in public, show them up for what they are and make them the casualties in the upcoming war of image and words. If it comes to it (I believe it will) prepare and stick up posters with published quotes from the anti-side's public representatives showing how they are deceiving people with public stances contrary to their actual beliefs. It doesn't matter how dated the quotes are, it's just that the quotes MUST be undeniably theirs. The fight is their's to lose, as much as it is ours.

Peanut Butter Jelly

I had an idea to make a superthread filled with counterarguments against the likes of Senator Ronan Mullen that we could all use if ever needed. Would you support that idea?

wp_rathead

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

I had an idea to make a superthread filled with counterarguments against the likes of Senator Ronan Mullen that we could all use if ever needed. Would you support that idea?

Aye a bullet point of all the strawman arguments that be used against SSM and brief argument that swiftly squashes these be handy for months ahead

Peanut Butter Jelly

Thread up.

Turtwig

A thought occurred to be in the other thread what the fck are referendum commission going to publish in their leaflets for opposing gay marriage?

efb

Turtwig wrote: »

A thought occurred to be in the other thread what the fck are referendum commission going to publish in their leaflets for opposing gay marriage?

They don't have to do that now, they just set out what the law means

oscarBravo

efb wrote: »

They don't have to do that now, they just set out what the law means

But broadcast media have to give equal airtime to both sides of the argument, the result of a terrible court judgement in response to a challenge brought by a terrible person. Which is why we heard pretty much nothing about the Court of Appeal in the last referendum: there wasn't that much of an argument against it, which precluded the media from talking about any arguments for it, which meant that it wasn't talked about.

freyners

oscarBravo wrote: »

But broadcast media have to give equal airtime to both sides of the argument, the result of a terrible court judgement in response to a challenge brought by a terrible person. Which is why we heard pretty much nothing about the Court of Appeal in the last referendum: there wasn't that much of an argument against it, which precluded the media from talking about any arguments for it, which meant that it wasn't talked about.

I know I've read it before but what was the name of the case again?

Vivisectus

hahaha and now, for the sake of balance in this discussion on a proposed Space program for Ireland, the other half of the program will be filled by a representative of the Flat Earth society.

NuMarvel

freyners wrote: »

I know I've read it before but what was the name of the case again?

Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission & RTE. Coughlan challenged RTE's coverage of the Divorce Referendum in 1996.

lazygal

freyners wrote: »

I know I've read it before but what was the name of the case again?

The McKenna judgment.

lazygal

NuMarvel wrote: »

Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission & RTE. Coughlan challenged RTE's coverage of the Divorce Referendum in 1996.

That's the one. I got mixed up with McKenna.

NuMarvel

lazygal wrote: »

That's the one. I got mixed up with McKenna.

McKenna was my first thought too. It's only when I looked into it just now that I realised the broadcasting situation was also the result of a Supreme Court. I'd always assumed it was RTE and other broadcasters stringently interpreting the McKenna ruling.

lazygal

NuMarvel wrote: »

McKenna was my first thought too. It's only when I looked into it just now that I realised the broadcasting situation was also the result of a Supreme Court. I'd always assumed it was RTE and other broadcasters stringently interpreting the McKenna ruling.

McKenna is about funding of campaigns iirc.

oscarBravo

I thought it was McKenna too. I have my disagreements with Anthony Coughlan, but he's no Patricia McKenna.

shruikan2553

If both sides have to have equal time given to them is there anything about actually talking about the topic? Im guessing we'll be hearing lots about children which has as much relevance to the referendum as my grandmothers pancake recipe.

lazygal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If both sides have to have equal time given to them is there anything about actually talking about the topic? Im guessing we'll be hearing lots about children which has as much relevance to the referendum as my grandmothers pancake recipe.

It's up to moderation and hosts to keep speakers on topic. The children arguments shouldn't be allowed as they are off topic in regard to marriage of straight and gay people.

Turtwig

You can pretty much guarantee every moderator on tv and radio will hesitate to tell the anti-side to shut their yap for anything. Regardless of how irrelevant the point will be. Make no mistake, this referendum will end up purely being about children and parenting. If it doesn't then Iona et al are really shyte at the whole public propaganda.

shruikan2553

Turtwig wrote: »

You can pretty much guarantee every moderator on tv and radio will hesitate to tell the anti-side to shut their yap for anything. Regardless of how irrelevant the point will be. Make no mistake, this referendum will end up purely being about children and parenting. If it doesn't then Iona et al are really shyte at the whole public propaganda.

This is what Im guessing will happen too. Any attempts of keeping on topic will be seen as censoring. All that can be really done is just letting people know that gay couples will be able to adopt together no matter what the result is and gay people can adopt now.

obplayer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

This is what Im guessing will happen too. Any attempts of keeping on topic will be seen as censoring. All that can be really done is just letting people know that gay couples will be able to adopt together no matter what the result is and gay people can adopt now.

And keep going back to the many studies showing there is no harm in two gays bringing up a child.

aloyisious

Jumps in with both feet, RTE 2 TV is showing a short "hold on tight" right now from GAZE about Same-Sex couples. Jeez. edited this three times now about make-up of the couples.

robindch

Singapore withdraws gay penguin book from libraries since somebody complained that the books don't support something called "family values".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28243356

BBC wrote:

ingapore authorities have withdrawn from libraries two children's books featuring same-sex couples, sparking controversy amid a debate on gay rights in the conservative city-state. And Tango Makes Three features a pair of gay penguins while The White Swan Express mentions a lesbian couple. Petitions for the books to be put back have garnered thousands of signatures.

Gay sex is illegal in Singapore, and a recent gay rally drew an unprecedented backlash from religious groups. The two books were removed earlier this week after a library user wrote into the National Library Board expressing concern about the books' content. The library board said in a statement that it takes "a pro-family and cautious approach in identifying titles for our young visitors", and plans to pulp the books despite vocal opposition.

Nearly 5,000 people have signed an open letter and a petition calling for the books to be put back, arguing that the ban amounts to censorship and that the books are not against family values. And Tango Makes Three is based on a real-life story of two male penguins which hatched an egg at the New York Zoo.

It has been the subject of intense controversy in the United States, and has consistently made it to the American Library Association's list of books which receive the most number of removal requests. The White Swan Express features several would-be parents looking to adopt children in China, including a lesbian couple and a single mother.

The annual Pink Dot rally sees supporters forming the eponymous dot in downtown Singapore The debate on gay rights has gathered steam in Singapore in recent years. The annual Pink Dot gay rally last month was met with a counter "pro-family" campaign backed by religious groups.

Gay rights proponents have launched two constitutional challenges to overturn a law that bans gay sex. Singapore's government has said that while it will retain the law to reflect mainstream society's stand on the issue, it will not be actively enforced.

lazygal

Ah, the David Quinn special complaint. Family values is now complimentarity or some such nonsense.

Vivisectus

I wish that someone could explain to me what Family Values are, exactly. Briefly, and to the point. They seem to occupy the same mythical space as the silent majority.

lazygal

I think this is what people opposed to gay marriage mean - marriage is only for making the babies. And only marriage protects mammies and daddies with children. And no one gets married if they don't want to be a mammy or daddy.

Vivisectus

Excellent! But then before we start worrying about keeping gays from marrying, we should target a much larger threat to family values: divorce and childlessness. I say dissolve any marriages that do not produce offspring (unless you can get a medical cert from your doctor that states you are trying some fertility treatment) and a prohibition on divorce for anyone with children.

robindch

Vivisectus wrote: »

I wish that someone could explain to me what Family Values are, exactly. Briefly, and to the point.

Far as I can infer from context and usage, it's a broadly vacuous hooray-term intended to signal public respect for under-educated, low-self esteem married people. While the term does appear to be designed more with women in mind, it certainly doesn't exclude men.

In effect, people who support "family values" appear to think that by doing so, they are signalling respect and some kind of validation for their own life choices.

Brian Shanahan

Vivisectus wrote: »

Excellent! But then before we start worrying about keeping gays from marrying, we should target a much larger threat to family values: divorce and childlessness. I say dissolve any marriages that do not produce offspring (unless you can get a medical cert from your doctor that states you are trying some fertility treatment) and a prohibition on divorce for anyone with children.

You're forgetting the biggest threat of all: ****!

For as it is said "every sperm is sacred, if even one gets wasted, god gets quite irate!"

Pherekydes

I saw a documentary on this once. I think it was called "Addams' Family Values", though they may have erroneously omitted the apostrophe.

lazygal

Does my family have values if we're atheist?

SebBerkovich

lazygal wrote: »

Does my family have values if we're atheist?

Nope, sorry - The Bible is quite clear on the matter in fact...

Letters 34:5 - "And thus the lord spoketh- lazygal's family has no values. Jesus wept."

Pherekydes

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You're forgetting the biggest threat of all: ****!

For as it is said "every sperm is sacred, if even one gets wasted, god gets quite irate!"

Strange! As he created us "as is" can he explain how so many sperm get wasted?

I didn't think so...

Vivisectus

lazygal wrote: »

Does my family have values if we're atheist?

Conservapedia wrote:

Family values refers to a set of common beliefs held by those who believe the family is the cornerstone of society. It is a phrase most often associated with American conservatives.
Family values often overlap with conservative or small town values and include:
Strong emphasis on the sanctity of marriage
Opposition to homosexual indoctrination and San Francisco values
Opposition to Hollywood indoctrination and propaganda.
Pro-life beliefs
Belief in the importance of religion and prayer in everyday life
An emphasis on truth and humility
An emphasis on hard-work and strong personal character
An emphasis on personal responsibility
Belief that parents, and not government or public schools, know what is best for their children
Emphasis on self reliance, as opposed to government handouts
Respect for historical precedence and longstanding values

so no, sorry.

Vivisectus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Strange! As he created us "as is" can he explain how so many sperm get wasted?

I didn't think so...

First he will have to explain why my reproductive chute seems to be hooked up to the liquid waste-disposal unit.

robindch

So "born gay" or "lifestyle choice"? The science is coming in slowly, but surely:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/born-way-evolutionary-view-%E2%80%98gay-genes%E2%80%99