Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Yet you don't want the more common form of marriage, polygamy. If piecemeal is what you object to than have a proper referendum now.

Phil I'm sure many ladies and gentlemen are beating down your door but polygamy has nothing to do with a debate on homophobia

enda1

No

efb wrote: »

Why?

Well its a simpler process which is easier to instigate and easier to dissolve. It's more for those living together (perhaps medium to longterm relationships) who aren't ready/don't want to/don't believe in etc. the stronger terms of marriage law.

Annasopra

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

I think I speak for the majority when I say; **** Iona and Youth Defense and their contemporaries. **** 'em **** 'em**** 'em. Seriously...when does it end.

Indeed but the reality is politicians take them seriously

drunkmonkey

efb wrote: »

Phil I'm sure many ladies and gentlemen are beating down your door but polygamy has nothing to do with a debate on homophobia

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Phill Ewinn

Sarky wrote: »

Why so precious over civil marriage, Phill? It doesn't change religious marriage one jot, your church du jour can still refuse to recognise gay people as equals all it likes. What have you got against it? Come on, tell us. I'm sure you have some rationale for it besides "I just don't like it" or some long-since-debunked piece of trashy pseudoscience.

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Annasopra

No

The whataboutery in order to derail the discussion is quite funny.

efb

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Bit that isn't what's discussed here homophobia has nothing to do with polygamy

But keep throwing up smokescreens

efb

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Marriage has evolved you agreed at the start of this discussion

Annasopra

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Who wants to replace marriage?

krudler

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Which is?

enda1

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Would you be opposed to same gender couples having a "gayunion" which has all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but is not called marriage - it being a different piece of (albeit identical) legislation?

drunkmonkey

efb wrote: »

Bit that isn't what's discussed here homophobia has nothing to do with polygamy

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

Friend Computer

But... it's not.

Sarky

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

That's just a variation on "I just don't like it". It's not good enough, Phill. Can you give us a better reason? Something less personal? Something rational?

efb

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

Homophobic comments and remarks

Daith

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

No you're quite wrong here.

If same sex marriage was to pass both gay people and straight people would have the same rights.

That would also mean the same lack of "rights" to have a polygamous marriage.

efb

No

Anyway back on topic RTE won't tell me why they apologised

_Redzer_

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Ok, if you want polygamy legalised will you also allow gay polygamy too?

_Redzer_

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

He must be gay if he supports marriage equality. Of course, sure who else would be in favour of it? Straight people?

Pfft. That's crazy talk

Nodin

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

What have you got against the gays marrying phill? You are yet to enlighten us.

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

drunkmonkey

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Ok, if you want polygamy legalised will you also allow gay polygamy too?

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

eyescreamcone

No

The debate has nothing to do with gay-marriage.
Gay-marriage is a smokescreen

The battle is to keep those dirty queers from adopting fine upstanding Aryan Catholic children, and preventing them from doing their communion and stuff!








PS. Usual apologies to Mike Godwin!

efb

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

Can you start s thread to discuss this rather than derail this one?

Corkfeen

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

Daith

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If there going to do it them they might as well fix it for everyone. Is that ok?

That'll be up to the people of Ireland when polygamy is put to a referendum?

drunkmonkey

Daith wrote: »

That'll be up to the people of Ireland when polygamy is put to a referendum?

I'll be wishing I was a whole lot younger if that ever happens. Seriously though isn't there a need to legalise it as there are some religious groups breaking the law at the moment.

Phill Ewinn

Corkfeen wrote: »

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

AerynSun

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

Hmmm... and this useful comment conjures up visions of someone in drag, and suddenly it's looking up again

Daith

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

A penis and a vagina.

Your turn Phil!

darced

This post has been deleted.

seenitall

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

But you have no rational reason to do so. You are entirely reliant upon an irrational fear of gay people inexplicably damaging marriage. You appear to view such relationships inferior. Therefore your viewpoint is homophobic,simple.

Ah no, not inferior. Never inferior, and don't you dare impute that on this level-headed and just poster. He already stated on the thread he sees gay unions as equal.

Just not equal enough to be able to marry.

Daith

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or they get silenced by Iona......check?

Nodin

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Off you go nodin......

Do a list there, or something

No phill, you brought these things up, so you can explain them

What have you got against the gays marrying phill?

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

_Redzer_

No

darced wrote: »

Gay rights being compared to the civil rights movement...check

Nobody allowed a different opinion....check

Nodin asking the same question over and over again....check

polygamy....check

Anybody for incest???

Usual list of proven homophobes in thread including yourself... check

AerynSun

No

Nodin wrote: »

What have you got against the gays marrying phill?

I don't have anything against the gays marrying Phill... but we're going to need to change the law to allow it on both counts: gay marriage and polygamy (cos that's 'gays' with a plural form 's').

floggg

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Which is the proper thing to do. Open discussion, democracy, it's like a real country again

No, it's not really. Minority rights should never be put to a public vote.

Equality is something that should be guaranteed by the State, not given at the whim of a majority.

Differential treatment should only be permitted where there are objectively justifiable reasons for doing so.

In this case, there are no objectively justifiable and evidence based reasons for discriminating against same sex couples.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind.

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

Corkfeen

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is whats wrong with this discussion. Posting useless comments like this does make the time drag.....

My irony alarms are deafening...

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind.

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

How will same sex couples marrying negatively affect anyone? If you have no proof of negative effects, we can conclude you've been engaging in hyperbole whenever you discuss this topic.

Phill Ewinn

floggg wrote: »

Equality is something that should be guaranteed by the State, not given at the whim of a majority.

Now were back to the conspiracy argument................

No-one is trying keep rights from you.

eyescreamcone

No

seenitall wrote: »

Ah no, not inferior. Never inferior, and don't you dare impute that on this level-headed and just poster. He already stated on the thread he sees gay unions as equal.

Just not equal enough to be able to marry.

...and not equal enough to adopt!!!

Friend Computer

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Now were back to the conspiracy argument................

No-one is trying keep rights from you.

Well you seem pretty dead-set against gay marriage, so... yeah, we can count you, at least.

Nodin

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I've said countless times.

Marriage between men, women and a mixture of both in polygamous marriage has been around a thousand years before you were born.

What we do know is that that system ended a thousand years ago and its effects spread across Europe. It ended for a reason. Now I wasn't around that long ago so look, don't blame me.
Its effects are with us and you can say with all certainty that its had a positive effect on mankind. .

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Now - you want to change that.

I'm asking why. I still have no answer. The rights issues you are on about can be settled with civil partnership legislation. You have not explained why marriage should change.

No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

_Redzer_

No

Nodin wrote: »

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?



No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

He never does have an argument. He'll call foul and run off claiming to be the victim in a minute. Like always.

equivariant

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.
There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

Rubbish. Of course it is homophobic.

Analogy: Could you say that there are people that don't believe in voting rights for women due to the institution of voting as being only for men (historically it was), but don't have a problem with women being allowed to do other stuff. And then say that such people are not sexist?

You don't get away with homophobia/sexism/racism just by being spectactularly misinformed.

This "institution of marriage" claptrap is just smoke and mirrors.

floggg

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

Sorry, but I don't want a separate water fountain to drink from.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

So you've no actual argument whatsoever? Great stuff.

You know polygamy just ended in some parts of the world, don't you?



No one has suggested marriage should change, just that its availability be extended to same sex couples.

So your hatred of polygamy is justified? Oh right........


Its growing Nodin. As you well know.

It’s more than a little ironic that Utah, which was forced to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as a condition for statehood, has been thrust into the role of traditional marriage’s champion by two pivotal cases involving same-sex couples and polygamy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/29/utah-prepares-to-fight-federal-court-rulings-on-ga/#ixzz2rcTDwjYo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

Phill Ewinn

equivariant wrote: »

Rubbish. Of course it is homophobic.

Analogy: Could you say that there are people that don't believe in voting rights for women due to the institution of voting as being only for men (historically it was), but don't have a problem with women being allowed to do other stuff. And then say that such people are not sexist?

You don't get away with homophobia/sexism/racism just by being spectactularly misinformed.

This "institution of marriage" claptrap is just smoke and mirrors.

And the gay people who oppose gay marriage are also homophobic?

Right...........:rolleyes:

Phill Ewinn

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't want a separate water fountain to drink from.

Then don't ask for one!

Nodin

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

So your hatred of polygamy is justified? Oh right........

What? I've no problem with polygamy.

Why is it you can't actually explain your objection to gay marriage phill? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you - who should be arguing a case - are unable to do so?