Iona vs Panti

Tombo2001

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a odd thing, to me at least, but I find that very religious people can be incredibly lacking in empathy. You need only go to the other forum to see evidence of this. There are quite a few posters there who claim, and appear, to be very religious, but really come across a being most unpleasant, people that I would really not want to spend any time with in real life. Really quite nasty in some cases. I guess breda is merely an other example of this.

Perhaps it is due to the arrogance than often comes from following the "right" religion.

MrP

I wouldnt agree with that.

I think that what distinguishes the likes of Ronan Mullen, John Waters etc isnt the fact they are religious, but that they are mouthy and want to be in the public eye, they want to win the argument and want their way to be THE way.....

You get these people in many walks of life. Militant Irish nationalists spring to mind. And a lack of empathy is almost a pre-requisite to behave in this way.

There are plenty of religious people who go about their religion in a very quiet personal way, and arent shoving their views down everyones throat, and these people can be extraordinarily empathetic. The most obvious example would be how many priests can comfort families in times of bereavement. I would never underestimate that, or take away from it. Religion or no religion, it has a real value in society.

Zillah

I'll call her a liar to her face, on air if possible, no hesitation. Here's why:

"One of the main reasons that gay people want marriage rights is so that they can be registered as parents of children, either by adopting a partner’s children or by commissioning children through surrogacy, and/or egg or sperm donation.

No gay couple can bring children into their relationship without the assistance of at least one person of the opposite gender. This fundamental difference, with all the profound implications for children of being raised either without their mother, or their father, is supposed to be politely ignored so that adults can receive their ‘rights.’"

If she really opposed gay marriage because of adoption and surrogacy then she would be campaigning against allowing infertile couples and elderly couples to get married. She doesn't. She is prejudiced against gay people. Which makes her homophobic.

Breda O'Brien is homophobic.

Zillah

Also it has to be a false statement, Breda dear, for it to be defamation.

Brian Shanahan

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think whats more likely is that the Irish Times is so self concious about being perceived as lefty and liberal that it gives absolutely heaps of print space to right wing conservatives to show that it is not just a lefty liberal paper.

The IT long ago lost any resemblance of a paper that had a left-wing bias. And to be honest this image is well gone. When you employ someone (well syndicate) as nut-jobby as Mark Steyn you'll quickly lose any reputation for being to the left of Maggie. It's when the IT brought him in that I lost interest in reading the paper, before Madame Kennedy's ascendance they were a slightly right-wing paper who were intelligent enough to give a balanced voice to all and adopt left-wing ideas when they were correct. After it had little to differentiate it from the Murdoch stable.

Brian Shanahan

iwantmydinner wrote: »

dehumanisation.com

Can be yours for four easy payments of $49.99. We'll also give you this nifty dejuicer, this spiffy ice maker and best of all this unparalleled windscreen cleaning mop.

AerynSun

Zillah wrote: »

... defamation.

Oh... but I thought... defamation was 'de-faming', like making my fame less shiny? You know? So even if what you say is true, if it takes away from my fame (and adds to my notoriety?), then it IS defamation. Right? No? :P

Zillah

If anything we're making her more famous.

kylith

If she's tired of people calling her homophobic has she tried not discriminating against gay people so much?

aloyisious

Mr_A wrote: »

So are babies only 'commissioned' outside of traditional marriage? Or is that just another use of language designed to demonise those outside of the chosen path of the righteous?

Some people preach that Gay Marriage (IMO a horrible title for Civil Marriage for our homosexual citizens) is solely about getting children as a commodity.

I think it strange that some of those people are women, the very same sex as those people who were seen and treated legally as chattels, property of their husbands, a few decades ago. Our society adapted, changed and scrapped that 2nd class view of women (even though vestiges hung around with the "retirement" of women when they became pregnant). I don't see how Breda can complain about how our society adapts and accepts that all it's citizens must be allowed advance from a 2nd class status to be equals amongst equals, unless she wishes to forgo the improvement in rights she and other women got from our society. It leaves me wondering if she would willingly put her name to a published article or opinion-piece saying that Irish Travellers should not be seen and treated as equals amongst equals.

tawnyowl

SW wrote: »

and suggesting that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed marry/adopt isn't?

His whinging might have some merit if he applied his own standards to himself, Waters and Iona.

But that would require him to be consistent. He's being oppressed by people criticising him for being inconsistent!

Next people will be tweeting at him in disagreement!

Hotblack Desiato

Zillah wrote: »

If anything we're making her more famous.

So she's now Almost Famous ?

I think Breda would agree with the first part of the 'no more sex' line

aloyisious

Irish band Outrage release single "Oppression" for charity-funding of BeLonGTo.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feile.ie%2F2014%2F02%2F21%2Fcharity-single-by-outrage-oppression-ft-panti%2F&ei=QUMHU477GIa47Abk44Fw&usg=AFQjCNHq4kfhlmFfBJIXalnF1IW0nblTBg&sig2=9765YnIbwYWQ2fVj9C9NrA&bvm=bv.61725948,d.ZGU

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Ronan Mullen will always be the man who told couples who'd shared their heartbreak at having to travel abroad for terminations for fatal foetal abnormalities that they had a wider agenda.

Hello last week, but seriously, ye gods, did that weed actually say that? When and where?

Zubeneschamali

robindch wrote: »

When and where?

He said it when he slimed over to wipe mucus on them after they were at a meeting in Leinster House:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/senator-ronan-mullen-rejects-claims-over-women-in-abortion-discussions-at-leinster-house-26846123.html

MrPudding

On the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26287377

MrP

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

On the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26287377

MrP

I bet Iona wish they never sent any letters now,

Its now been almost 30 days and its still in the Irish & international Media...for all the wrong reasons

oceanclub

Funny interview with Panti in The Outmost:

http://t.co/hBCGLcFo3h

Maria Steen? Please. Who the **** are you? My dog is more famous than you. And Dr John Murray. Seriously? Nobody knows who you are, and nobody cares. And what’s with calling him Dr John Murray? They do love that in Iona, don’t they? People think he’s a medical doctor, but he’s a doctor of theology, which is like being a doctor of Harry Potter studies.

P.

Links234

aloyisious wrote: »

Irish band Outrage

Nothing to do with the Japanese band then? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRZPvlS2PQ

Mark Hamill

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He said it when he slimed over to wipe mucus on them after they were at a meeting in Leinster House:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/senator-ronan-mullen-rejects-claims-over-women-in-abortion-discussions-at-leinster-house-26846123.html

From the article:

[Ronan Mullen] has rejected claims that he suggested four women had a wider agenda as they told of their experiences of travelling for abortion due to fatal foetal abnormalities.

...

"It was at that point that I [Ronan Mullen] asked whether there was a separate agenda here as this was not what normally happened when politicians came along to follow up with people who came in to lobby them," [Ronan Mullen] said.

Is English not his first language or something?

aloyisious

Links234 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Japanese band then? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRZPvlS2PQ

Have to get the Metro to check on the band, don't think it said Japanese anywhere. I assumed it was an Irish band, hope I'm not morto (practices blushing) :eek:

lazygal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From the article:


Is English not his first language or something?

No he's just a judgemental little weasel.

Links234

aloyisious wrote: »

Have to get the Metro to check on the band, don't think it said Japanese anywhere. I assumed it was an Irish band, hope I'm not morto (practices blushing) :eek:

Oh it's not the same at all, I was just joking about the same name

aloyisious

Links234 wrote: »

Oh it's not the same at all, I was just joking about the same name

LOL, found the metro, It's Out!Rage

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgometro.ie%2F2014%2F02%2Foutrage-put-musical-spin-on-pantis-viral-abbey-speech%2F&ei=icMHU5ilJM7G7AaL0oGYAw&usg=AFQjCNFIcdyo4afBYTc7tapuTieN11crkw&bvm=bv.61725948,d.ZGU

Links234

aloyisious wrote: »

LOL, found the metro, It's Out!Rage

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgometro.ie%2F2014%2F02%2Foutrage-put-musical-spin-on-pantis-viral-abbey-speech%2F&ei=icMHU5ilJM7G7AaL0oGYAw&usg=AFQjCNFIcdyo4afBYTc7tapuTieN11crkw&bvm=bv.61725948,d.ZGU

The Japanese band is WAY better

Brian Shanahan

oceanclub quoting Panti wrote: »

but he’s a doctor of theology, which is like being a doctor of Harry Potter studies.

I am outraged, sir, outraged at this slander.

Doctorates in Harry Potter studies are far harder to get and far, far more valuable than doctorates in theology. Now where do I queue for my 85 grand?

Obliq

http://barbarascully.blogspot.ie/2014/02/my-good-name-was-demolished-too.html?spref=tw&m=1

Nice blog showing Breda's "argument" for the class of discrimination it is. I took offence to it in exactly the same way. As entirely irrelevant to marriage equality, and as the usual slur on single parents/childless couples/gay parents.

david75

In fairness to the Times, they have had Fintan O Toole write a couple of excellent articles about the whole debate. And maybe I'm biased cos I'm a fan but he can outmanoeuvre any of the naysayers that are featured in the Times. Waters and O Brien especially.

The Black Oil

Apparently, Breda's going to be on with Marian on RTE Radio 1. Bloody hell, talk about getting plenty of exposure. Ridiculous.

B0jangles

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.

The Black Oil

Will her next column be 'I went on to chat to Marian, but she was mean, I'm still being silenced'?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

http://barbarascully.blogspot.ie/2014/02/my-good-name-was-demolished-too.html?spref=tw&m=1

Nice blog showing Breda's "argument" for the class of discrimination it is. I took offence to it in exactly the same way. As entirely irrelevant to marriage equality, and as the usual slur on single parents/childless couples/gay parents.

A human right to biological information? I love it when people throw out a word because it looks so good in a sentence.

It's a human right, apparently. Etched into the very stuff we're made of, by God or something. Not a boring old civil right, or just a healthy practice when it's possible to do it. And if I seem really, really serious about saying it's a human right, folk will just have to nod along.

Feck, this circus is turning away from Stan's right to have babies, and turning into pure Johnny Cash.

I don't blame him 'cause he run and hid,
But the meanest thing that he ever did
Was before he left he went and named me Sue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BJfDvSITY

Pherekydes

She began to say the children of these [same sex] marriages will be exactly the same [as children of traditional marriages] but then checked herself.

Earth calling Breda [or God calling Breda]: These children will be exactly the same as the children of traditional marriages, regardless of how homophobes like yourself would like to differentiate between them.

oceanclub

She compared herself to gay people by saying she'd been shy as a teenager. A stunning lack of empathy bordering on delusion. There's no religions which think being shy is punishable by death. Or parents who throw their teenagers out of home for being shy. Or jobs where there are specific legal clauses allowing the sacking of shy people.

P.

lazygal

She came across as lacking empathy, self awareness and sympathy for anyone who isn't Just Like Her. You're a middle class white woman with a national newspaper column and a permanent teaching job, Breda, not Rosa Parks II.

oceanclub

lazygal wrote: »

She came across as lacking empathy, self awareness and sympathy for anyone who isn't Just Like Her. You're a middle class white woman with a national newspaper column and a permanent teaching job, Breda, not Rosa Parks II.

I know some people who have those from the Irish right-wing Catholic circles added on Facebook, so I've gotten to hear about some of the conversations you have. Here's a bunch of people who talk about the "groupthink" of liberal Ireland, but themselves live in a complete bubble. One noticeable thing is how intermarried lots of the well-known ultra-Catholic media people/spokepeople are - three families make up a sizeable number of them. And they are rarely friends with anyone outside the circle - so these conversations tend to be just wallows in self-pity at how oppressed they are.

P.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oceanclub wrote: »

A stunning lack of empathy bordering on delusion. There's

Alternatively, she's 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.

oceanclub

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Alternatively, she's 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.

I presume if you rewrite that, it will make sense, but I honestly have no idea what your point is.

P.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oceanclub wrote: »

I presume if you rewrite that, it will make sense, but I honestly have no idea what your point is.

P.

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

oceanclub

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.

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

P.

aloyisious

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".

Penn

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

aloyisious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.