Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Doctor Jimbob

The Black Oil wrote: »

Apparently, Dave and co. have an issue with Twitter Dublin advocating a Yes vote.

Iona have an odd relationship with speech and discourse.

You couldn't make this stuff up. They just keep digging.

Penn

The Black Oil wrote: »

Apparently, Dave and co. have an issue with Twitter Dublin advocating a Yes vote.

That's because Twitter something something children something something freedom something something media bias something something children something something religion something something grapefruit something something mother something something nothing something something We supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality something something children.

alaimacerc

I was a little more accurate than I'd have liked when I said:

alaimacerc wrote: »

First, it's like asserting a Right to Mom and Apple Pie. If you point out there's no such right in law, you'll immediately be met with a hail of "Oh, so you're against motherhood and traditional baked goods, then?"

"Minister Simon Coveney who is running Fine Gael’s Yes campaign in the marriage referendum has denied that children have a right to a mother and a father."

aloyisious

Mothers And Fathers Matter are upset that the Youth Defence site was hacked, pointing the finger at the YES side, but a Youth Defence rep said she and it were not bothered as the referendum was something they were not interested in, according to posts from both Org's on F/B. However MAFM are upset with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs does not think that children need a Mum and a Dad, as he supports a YES vote in the referendum.

The Black Oil

And...there's Dave interviewed on the 6.1 news. FFS. Is he trolling us all?

eviltwin

The Black Oil wrote: »

Apparently, Dave and co. have an issue with Twitter Dublin advocating a Yes vote.

Iona have an odd relationship with speech and discourse.

Maybe they will close their accounts in protest?

abff

Just saw this as the most recent thread. Why is this even an issue?

Nodin

abff wrote: »

Just saw this as the most recent thread. Why is this even an issue?

Because they're whiners. It's what they do, and the media give them the platform to do it.

oscarBravo

alaimacerc wrote: »

I was a little more accurate than I'd have liked when I said:


"Minister Simon Coveney who is running Fine Gael’s Yes campaign in the marriage referendum has denied that children have a right to a mother and a father."

Oh, Jesus wept. They truly are shameless turdmonkeys. There's very little that can work me up to seething fury, but a combination of bigotry, smugness and outright rejection of logic gets my blood pressure right up.

BlaasForRafa

alaimacerc wrote: »

I was a little more accurate than I'd have liked when I said:


"Minister Simon Coveney who is running Fine Gael’s Yes campaign in the marriage referendum has denied that children have a right to a mother and a father."

Their dishonesty in how they argue is unreal. One could just as easily say something like "Iona institute insist that battered women have no right to escape from their abusive husbands because the children have the right to be raised by their mother and father" or as a more snappy tabloid-y headline "Iona Institute endorses wifebeaters rights"

Bannasidhe

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Their dishonesty in how they argue is unreal. One could just as easily say something like "Iona institute insist that battered women have no right to escape from their abusive husbands because the children have the right to be raised by their mother and father" or as a more snappy tabloid-y headline "Iona Institute endorses wifebeaters rights"

Their dishonesty is a very effective tactic and one they can no doubt justify with mental reservations as its for the greater good and the end justifies the means etc etc.

For example:

Quinn makes statement about how vital it is for children to live with biological mammy and daddy.
Yes side bite it's tongue and struggles to not point out the sheer hypocrisy of Quinn's statement.

If the Yes side just can't take it any more then it will be 'Ohhh...loook personal attacks now, cries of victimhood across the media and Iona get to frame the debate.

BUT - as it currently stands Iona are still framing the debate because they have found a way of getting away with lying which gags their opponents or places their opponents in a reactive rather than proactive position.

Dangerous, clever, nasty but effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fFFIBS8rwU

Our favourite man on his favourite rant.

aloyisious

This is dangerous, referencing a yes vote as being stage one of a plan for "they" to introduce stage two, abortion. So, David say's that in Irish law you have to be married to have the right to have children. Love from a male/male couple or a female/female couple for a child is lesser than that of a male/female couple. Quotas as well. Slipping in the "two Mummies" bit after the pause and laughs. The "you won't know who your cousins are" piece is dangerous and liable to succeed. Driven out of business - PERsecution of a Drogheda printer. Don't love the bit near the end when David say's "a new generation of children - self-appointed person", that piece may get through (even though David - by definition -is a self-appointed person). In an Irish newspaper article he say's he run's the Iona Institute.

alaimacerc

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fFFIBS8rwU

Our favourite man on his favourite rant.

*facepalm* Where to start on this. "The right to have a child" coming with marriage as distinct from "not being able to stop them from having a child" otherwise. The word "right" springs a little too readily to his lips, methinks.

Going Strong

alaimacerc wrote: »

*facepalm* Where to start on this. "The right to have a child" coming with marriage as distinct from "not being able to stop them from having a child" otherwise. The word "right" springs a little too readily to his lips, methinks.

And is quite telling in that it comes across as a petulant "NOT FAIR!" that people he disapproves of are off having babies without asking for his permission first.

alaimacerc

"It's really purchasing an egg." "Effectively rent some woman's womb." Well, thanks for clearing that up Dave. Who needs to bother drafting the surrogacy legislation with you on the case? While riffing on the CFRA which... uh, expressly dropped any consideration of surrogacy.

Comic-book tutting from the audience at "tummy mummy"...

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fFFIBS8rwU

Our favourite man on his favourite rant.

Bit of a transcript for those who don't want to punch the oul screen.

He essentially drags abortion into the gay marriage referendum, then conflates same referendum with the right to adopt/"Won't someone think of the children?". Nasty bit of work, really.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/17/david-quinns-facts-of-life/

alaimacerc

Deleted User wrote: »

Our favourite man on his favourite rant.

Aaand... DQ is boycotting Apple for their alleged threatened boycott of Indiana, for its attempt to provide for boycotting of gay people. It's turtles all the way down, but curious that it's only about "freedom" when it's freedom to discriminate on sexuality, rather than where it's freedom from discrimination.

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

Aaand... DQ is boycotting Apple for their alleged threatened boycott of Indiana, for its attempt to provide for boycotting of gay people. It's turtles all the way down, but curious that it's only about "freedom" when it's freedom to discriminate on sexuality, rather than where it's freedom from discrimination.

He's not boycotting Twitter unfortunately.

alaimacerc

Nodin wrote: »

Bit of a transcript for those who don't want to punch the oul screen.

Now you tell me!

I want DQ to buy me a MacBook Air.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

He's not boycotting Twitter unfortunately.

Presumably with Apple he thinks he's the customer, but with Twitter he realizes he's the product?

... or something like that.

seamus

Thanks for that Nodin.

So basically his arguments come down to

a) an incorrect understanding of the constitution - he believes that the "family" in the constitution is a married couple and their children. Wrong. He believes that the constitution gives people the right to have children. Again wrong.

b) "I believe that a union of two men is different to a union of a man and a woman, so I want a special word to describe the latter". So go ahead and come up with that special word Dave, and use it all you like. Nobody is stopping you. What you believe is of no consequence to reality.

Stark

alaimacerc wrote: »

"It's really purchasing an egg." "Effectively rent some woman's womb." Well, thanks for clearing that up Dave. Who needs to bother drafting the surrogacy legislation with you on the case? While riffing on the CFRA which... uh, expressly dropped any consideration of surrogacy.

Downgrading women to the status of incubators Dave? Horrifying thought isn't it? Good thing Lolek Ltd. would never advocate that. No siree.

Delirium

Cork pastor compares homosexuality to rape.

Just like rape. Just like adultery (Full Article).

A Cork pastor has said that homosexuality is “a sexual sin, just like rape” in support of demands from religious leaders for a so–called ‘conscience clause’ to accompany the May 22nd equality referendum.


Calls for a conscience clause have been supported by a number of Cork religious leaders and have also drawn a claim that “God’s law” will always apply “irrespective of the law of the land” from an east Cork priest. The clause would permit religious groups to refuse to perform same–sex marriages in the event the referendum passes.


“I’d be in favour of a conscience clause, the same way I’d be in favour of the gardai not shooting me when I’m innocent,” said Craig Ledbetter of the Bible Baptist Church of Ballincollig.


“It would violate my conscience as a religious leader. I will not marry a same sex couple. Homosexuality is a sexual sin, just like rape, just like adultery. If a rapist demanded his crimes to be recognised legally, we as a society wouldn’t allow it,” Pastor Ledbetter told The Cork News.


Pastor Ledbetter said that his opposition to same–sex marriage should not be considered a personal attack on gay people, and that permitting religious groups to refuse to provide for same–sex marriages should not be considered discriminatory.


“They’re hijacking marriage. It doesn’t belong to them,” he said, referring to gay couples. “When (same-sex marriage) is available elsewhere, you can’t force every religious group to provide it. We used to live in a free society. Of all people, liberals demand diversity. Now, they demand conformity. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong,” he continued.


Members of the Catholic clergy, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church this week signed an online petition calling for a “conscientious objection” clause to be included in the referendum.


While the Cork dioceses of Cloyne, and Cork and Ross did not respond to requests for an official comment, Father Anthony O’Brien of Carrigtwohill, said he would agree with the principle of an opt–out:
“Conscience is conscience, irrespective of faith. You follow your conscience on any matter,” he told The Cork News.

lazygal

His exactly does David think the right of married couples to have children should be vindicated by the state I wonder.

MojoRisinnnn

The man is quite clearly an insane human being, hilarious article

Nodin

“It would violate my conscience as a religious leader. I will not marry a
same sex couple. Homosexuality is a sexual sin, just like rape,
just like adultery. If a rapist demanded his crimes to be recognised legally,
we as a society wouldn’t allow it,” Pastor Ledbetter told The Cork
News.

Pastor Ledbetter said that his opposition to same–sex
marriage should not be considered a personal attack on gay people, and that permitting religious groups to refuse to provide for same–sex marriages should not be considered discriminatory.

Ye have to laugh at that, really. "I'm not slagging ye off, ye rapist ye". Doubt the adulterers are too happy with the comparison either.

Penn

This is the bit that got me:

Homosexuality is a sexual sin, just like rape, just like adultery. If a rapist demanded his crimes to be recognised legally, we as a society wouldn’t allow it,” Pastor Ledbetter told The Cork News.

Sure. If a rapist demanded his crimes be recognised legally, no chance.

Of course, if he simply asks a priest in a confession box for forgiveness, he's allowed into Heaven. I mean, that's fine. That makes perfect sense.

Delirium

Nodin wrote: »

Bit of a transcript for those who don't want to punch the oul screen.

He essentially drags abortion into the gay marriage referendum, then conflates same referendum with the right to adopt/"Won't someone think of the children?". Nasty bit of work, really.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/17/david-quinns-facts-of-life/

Saw this response to the above:

Zillah

SW wrote: »

Cork pastor compares homosexuality to rape.

Just like rape. Just like adultery (Full Article).

I am confused. If this referendum passes it surely won't require religious organisations to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, will it?

MetalDog

Zillah wrote: »

I am confused. If this referendum passes it surely won't require religious organisations to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, will it?

It won't but they're cracking on like it will. Playing the victim card and all that tedious sh1te.

Zillah

MetalDog wrote: »

It won't but they're cracking on like it will. Playing the victim card and all that tedious sh1te.

So this supposed exemption is 100% redundant? If so, that's utter genius...

shruikan2553

Zillah wrote: »

I am confused. If this referendum passes it surely won't require religious organisations to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, will it?

A catholic priest doesnt have to marry two people who are divorced or not catholic so they already get to avoid equality laws.

The Black Oil

Elements of the No side seem to have gotten pretty desperate in the past 24-48 hours.

Bannasidhe

The Black Oil wrote: »

Elements of the No side seem to have gotten pretty desperate in the past 24-48 hours.

Tell me about it - I've been listening to Liveline.

'It contraveeeens planning permission Joe!'

Going Strong

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me about it - I've been listening to Liveline.

'It contraveeeens planning permission Joe!'

Are they talking about surrogate parents now?

B_Wayne

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me about it - I've been listening to Liveline.

'It contraveeeens planning permission Joe!'

It was actually a mother and son, they avoided the question when Joe asked if they were related .
http://www.rabble.ie/2014/03/04/irelands-phelps-family-and-nuig/

The Black Oil

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ignore Quinn himself, he is a deeply opinionated man who will not be moved. Instead, speak to his supporters and ask them why they would want to cause hurt to our future generations, why they would deny them such a thing as a simple legal right in the eyes of the state and remind them of this. The referendum does not impact children in any way. Tell them and show them that Quinn is lying to them.

Do not resort to anger and hate, not when the aim is opposite.

I was starting to feel a little bit sorry for him, a professional Christian battling away against media bias, or whatever. There's the video in the thread in AH, all the fallacies and lastly, denouncing Twitter - just plain silly. What I've bolded in you post is key. Certain Christians are experts in creating walls of denial, it's the same with abortion or sex education.

Maybe the A&A thread needs now needs to take a different direction. Positive stories about gay people, perhaps?

aloyisious

I was wondering why they got upset when Joe asked them if they knew each other. They didn't play together successfully in all parts, shown when he played the "all we are seeking is Justice" in relation to the planning permission card she played, and she didn't play along as he caught her on the hop.

@Zillah:No, religions will NOT be obliged to perform same sex marriages and they know this. otherwise we'd be hearing from a lot more than than the R.C church and R.C based groups. I reckon the EXEMPTION-angle they are prepping for is the teacher V school ethos, though it is NOT mentioned or hinted at. Wait and see whether (if the referendum is passed and same-sex teacher couples get married) there will be a flurry of sacking or non renewal of contracts by schools with "behaviour contradictary to school ethos" being claimed as the reason.

Personally I wonder about the funding to the NO-side. I reckon that the mural has caught them on the hop, they never thought of doing something like it. They didn't raise any objection raised to the mural of two women sharing an embrace (IMO, so like the image of a high-profile same-sex female couple here) up by Sth Richmnod St.

PopePalpatine

seamus wrote: »

b) "I believe that a union of two men is different to a union of a man and a woman, so I want a special word to describe the latter". So go ahead and come up with that special word Dave, and use it all you like. Nobody is stopping you. What you believe is of no consequence to reality.

Surely "matrimony" would be that word he's looking for?

Hoagy

I see that Daintree paper in Camden Street have come up with a novel way of dealing with the 'NO' literature, they're shredding it and selling it as confetti to raise funds for the 'YES' campaign.

The new owners don't share the previous owner's prejudice.


A Shred of Decency.

Well done Daintree.

aloyisious

seamus wrote: »

Thanks for that Nodin.

So basically his arguments come down to



b) "I believe that a union of two men is different to a union of a man and a woman, so I want a special word to describe the latter". So go ahead and come up with that special word Dave, and use it all you like. Nobody is stopping you. What you believe is of no consequence to reality.

Seem's Dave's been reading the dictionary, seem's marriage is derived from the French word matrimony, ala mater, or woman. He's just "forgotten" words meanings, and use of them, change.

Re Daintree, Dave believes (according to his statement in the video) the previous owner was driven out of business because of his Christian beliefs.

lazygal

a postere wrote: »

New business opportunity idea, find a successful business you'd like, that a Christian currently owns, and then force a takeover on the cheap. Nice one !

Yes that's exactly what happened. The nice Christian people who decided not to do business with gay people were somehow not at fault for losing business from those who'd rather not give those who discriminate against gay people money.

abff

If it wasn't so sad, it would make me laugh.

a postere

lazygal wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what happened. The nice Christian people who decided not to do business with gay people were somehow not at fault for losing business from those who'd rather not give those who discriminate against gay people money.

But you see he didn't refuse to do business with gay people, that's more false claims.

EoghanIRL

As far as I know his holiness touches homosexuals equally with his noodly appendages.
Fsm: 1 Christianity: 0

shruikan2553

lazygal wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what happened. The nice Christian people who decided not to do business with gay people were somehow not at fault for losing business from those who'd rather not give those who discriminate against gay people money.

You see you can treat gay people as inferior because it's part of your religion but if anyone dares to not say "thats ok" then they are the intolerant ones. Religious freedoms are for only you.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Have mixed feelings on the petition to revoke iona's charitable status. It's just another piece of ammo for they to deflect with and avoiding actually discussing anything.

Frankly if all of us individually gave the Ionanists each a big bag of uncut perfect diamonds, they'd still look to find some way to call it "discrimination" and upon failing to do so, lie about how "discriminated against" they are by the priceless stones now in their possession.

No matter what happens they'll play the victim card. They know they've no arguments, they know they've not even got an emotional rallying cry. All that is left is the lies.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Their dishonesty in how they argue is unreal. One could just as easily say something like "Iona institute insist that battered women have no right to escape from their abusive husbands because the children have the right to be raised by their mother and father" or as a more snappy tabloid-y headline "Iona Institute endorses wifebeaters rights"

Not really, there's a good chance that what you've just written becoming an Ionanist policy (albeit written in touchy feely carp) whereas what they wrote about Min. Coveney are scurrilous and libellous lies.

aloyisious

a postere wrote: »

But you see he didn't refuse to do business with gay people, that's more false claims.

So true, he just told people that he wouldn't print something with a picture of two men together that would have celebrated two men getting wed to each other as it was against his religious beliefs. All the other printed material they asked for in relation to it he was quite prepared to print and supply: just not the image of the two men together in a loving relationship. Quite a committed believer.

On a comical note; there's an online magazine on F/B (similar to the Waterford Whisperer) the Northern Stranded running a front page "story" about a southern personality saying that she and like-minded southern baptists from the U.S. would be holding an anti gay marriage protest outside the George earlier in the evening. I did blink when I first saw the report.

efb

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mcaleeses-son-talks-of-growing-up-as-gay-man-as-he-calls-for-yes-31152459.html

Justin McAleese comes out and calls for a yes