Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney for 'supporting same-sex marriage' on air

Options
1…1819212324

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    krudler wrote: »
    You think the bible was written in the stone age?

    no but cavemen were.who mentioned the bible?


  • Options
    #603
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Nodin wrote: »
    You could make the same silly argument for taking the vote off women.

    how about an answer to the question though?


  • Options
    #604
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    catallus wrote: »
    Most of the population of the western world subsists under the condition of slavery; it is our perception of ourselves that has changed.

    The slave-owners are the corporations, and we are the willing slaves. Work hard and each day you'll earn just enough to survive!

    Bit of a stretch, at least you don't get bred like cattle, have families split up and sold and get the lash when late for your subsistence job in McDonalds.


  • Options
    #605
    368100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,067 ✭✭✭368100


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

    You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

    You don't have to be gay to support gay marraige


  • Options
    #606
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    marienbad wrote: »
    Bit of a stretch, at least you don't get bred like cattle, have families split up and sold and get the lash when late for your subsistence job in McDonalds.

    human nature is to reproduce,emigration has split thousands of families and you get sacked from your job if late.and if a choice between the lash or living on the dole I'd give serious consideration to the lash.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    fran17 wrote: »
    human nature is to reproduce,emigration has split thousands of families and you get sacked from your job if late.and if a choice between the lash or living on the dole I'd give serious consideration to the lash.

    This has become a ridiculous sidetrack. The point is Longevity does not equate to legitimacy - have you anything to offer that refutes that view ?


  • Options
    #608
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    I made my reasons very clear in a previous thread on this matter as you well know.that thread was then usurped by certain individuals but that's all water under the bridge now
    Nope,you never provided a rational reason. You have a long history of posting in these topics but you never actually make proper points. You rant about the gays, gay pride festivals and 'fag hags' to borrow your language. So it really doesn't come across as if you have an argument and more that you seem to have a thing against them.
    fran17 wrote: »
    they were stone age...but how come then in thousands of years and in hundreds of civilisations has same sex unions in the main been deemed as wrong?

    So we should bring back slavery? Society has been constantly evolving. Bigotry that existed in the past, we have realised is not rational so just because perceptions have been around a long time does not give them credibility or legitimacy.


  • Options
    #609
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    marienbad wrote: »
    This has become a ridiculous sidetrack. The point is Longevity does not equate to legitimacy - have you anything to offer that refutes that view ?

    we could say this whole thread has become a ridiculous sidetrack.I don't understand your question,what do you mean about life expectancy/long life?


  • Options
    #610
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Nope,you never provided a rational reason. You have a long history of posting in these topics but you never actually make proper points. You rant about the gays, gay pride festivals and 'fag hags' to borrow your language. So it really doesn't come across as if you have an argument and more that you seem to have a thing against them.


    So we should bring back slavery? Society has been constantly evolving. Bigotry that existed in the past, we have realised is not rational so just because perceptions have been around a long time does not give them credibility or legitimacy.

    just because you don't agree with someone else's points does not make them irrational,someday you must understand this.you are a firm believer that anybody who argues with lgbt issues,for whatever reason,is a "homophobe" and I find that irrational.and a fag hag is widely understood by most as a woman who associates mainly with gay men,hell wiki will tell you that.
    do you think society should evolve someday to letting one marry there pets or there kettle because they couldn't in the past?


  • Options
    #611
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    When our marriage legislation was drafted there was no discussion whatsoever of same sex marriages.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/index.html

    That legislation was repealed and replaced 10 years.
    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There is no legal prohibition. It simply was not considered in the legislation up to now, marriage was only ever one man and one woman.

    Anyone who's done any bit of research into the current marriage laws would know there is a legal prohibition set out in the Civil Registration Act 2004, Section 2(2)(e):
    "For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if... both parties are of the same sex."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    fran17 wrote: »
    just because you don't agree with someone else's points does not make them irrational,someday you must understand this.you are a firm believer that anybody who argues with lgbt issues,for whatever reason,is a "homophobe" and I find that irrational.and a fag hag is widely understood by most as a woman who associates mainly with gay men,hell wiki will tell you that.
    do you think society should evolve someday to letting one marry there pets or there kettle because they couldn't in the past?

    Equating SSM with bestiality and marrying inanimate objects is moronic in fairness.

    I still havent heard a rational reason against SSM without involving religion or imaginary children, I doubt I ever will either.


  • Options
    #613
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    just because you don't agree with someone else's points does not make them irrational,someday you must understand this.you are a firm believer that anybody who argues with lgbt issues,for whatever reason,is a "homophobe" and I find that irrational.and a fag hag is widely understood by most as a woman who associates mainly with gay men,hell wiki will tell you that.
    do you think society should evolve someday to letting one marry there pets or there kettle because they couldn't in the past?

    Classic,you've moved onto marrying kettles... Is this your very best argument? Two people of the same sex are conscious,thinking and capable of consent and love. Maybe your parents did not cover how kettles and pets are not capable of consent. It's not remotely comparable to same sex marriage.

    In fact,you seem pretty fascinated with finding something wrong with gay people. But everyone is free to check the rest of your history.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79128489&postcount=63

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82023269

    But if you are as rational as you claim. You should be able to provide me with a legitimate reason to prevent same sex marriage. Or refer us to one of your posts where you listed your reasons. There's not much content in most of them though.


  • Options
    #614
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Classic,you've moved onto marrying kettles... Is this your very best argument? Two people of the same sex are conscious,thinking and capable of consent and love. Maybe your parents did not cover how kettles and pets are not capable of consent. It's not remotely comparable to same sex marriage.

    In fact,you seem pretty fascinated with finding something wrong with gay people. But everyone is free to check the rest of your history.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79128489&postcount=63

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82023269

    But if you are as rational as you claim. You should be able to provide me with a legitimate reason to prevent same sex marriage. Or refer us to one of your posts where you listed your reasons. There's not much content in most of them though.

    Why do idiots with nothing but a base of junior cert science lecture everyone else about human biology as if they know it 'as fact'?

    They should be told to feck off back under their rocks, let the rational people deal with the science and lift their burden.


  • Options
    #615
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Why do idiots with nothing but a base of junior cert science lecture everyone else about human biology as if they know it 'as fact'?

    They should be told to feck off back under their rocks, let the rational people deal with the science and lift their burden.

    Personally I'd love if people just read lots so that they won't come out with such nonsense.


  • Options
    #616
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Personally I'd love if people just read lots so that they won't come out with such nonsense.

    Such a superior attitude. 80% of the people in the poll think the BAI got it wrong. If they did a bit of reading about the actual case it might stop some of them from calling people homophobes.


  • Options
    #617
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Such a superior attitude. 80% of the people in the poll think the BAI got it wrong. If they did a bit of reading about the actual case it might stop some of them from calling people homophobes.

    Marriage equality is fine but Mooney sickens me.


  • Options
    #618
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Personally I'd love if people just read lots so that they won't come out with such nonsense.

    Corkfeen I don't oppose Ssm but the reason to oppose it that homosexuality has a sociobiological function OTHER than the the emulation of heterosexuality.

    I don't think that many people who oppose giving homoeexuals the same rights in law as heterosexuals make this argument because thet do not want to say that homosexuality is natural.


  • Options
    #619
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Homosexuality is natural, there I said it.


  • Options
    #620
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Why do idiots with nothing but a base of junior cert science lecture everyone else about human biology as if they know it 'as fact'?

    They should be told to feck off back under their rocks, let the rational people deal with the science and lift their burden.

    see I tried to debate this topic with you and your ilk in the past but it quickly turned into,as it is now,a nasty personal attack.imo you sir are a virile hetrophobe and if your the tip of the lgbt iceberg then you can keep it.i wont be responding to anymore personal insults from you.good evening


  • Options
    #621
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    fran17 wrote: »
    see I tried to debate this topic with you and your ilk in the past but it quickly turned into,as it is now,a nasty personal attack.imo you sir are a virile hetrophobe and if your the tip of the lgbt iceberg then you can keep it.i wont be responding to anymore personal insults from you.good evening

    Ah the old "I can't give any counter argument so I'll run away claiming abuse when none was given" strategy, it's a bold move Cotton let's see if it pays off for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    "Hetrophobe"? I'd expect that dumbassery from a Nick Griffin tantrum.


  • Options
    #623
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    just because you don't agree with someone else's points does not make them irrational

    No Fran, no it dosn't!
    fran17 wrote: »
    do you think society should evolve someday to letting one marry there pets or there kettle because they couldn't in the past?

    From the very same post! In all fairness do you read your posts before you click 'post reply'.


  • Options
    #624
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Such a superior attitude. 80% of the people in the poll think the BAI got it wrong. If they did a bit of reading about the actual case it might stop some of them from calling people homophobes.
    The specific thing I was actually discussing was objectors to ssm. Frankly, I am likely to feel superior to people in this debate who cannot put together a basic argument in favour of their position.
    fran17 wrote: »
    see I tried to debate this topic with you and your ilk in the past but it quickly turned into,as it is now,a nasty personal attack.imo you sir are a virile hetrophobe and if your the tip of the lgbt iceberg then you can keep it.i wont be responding to anymore personal insults from you.good evening

    Could you refer us to those posts? Because they primarily seem to be rants or vitriol. Also am I a self hating straight man?


  • Options
    #625
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    krudler wrote: »
    Ah the old "I can't give any counter argument so I'll run away claiming abuse when none was given" strategy, it's a bold move Cotton let's see if it pays off for them.

    Telling someone to feck off back under their rock is not abuse??


  • Options
    #626
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    fran17 wrote: »
    see I tried to debate this topic with you and your ilk in the past but it quickly turned into,as it is now,a nasty personal attack.imo you sir are a virile hetrophobe and if your the tip of the lgbt iceberg then you can keep it.i wont be responding to anymore personal insults from you.good evening

    Virile Heterophobe?

    Some incompetent insulting right there.


  • Options
    #627
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Virile Heterophobe?

    Some incompetent insulting right there.

    "Impotent" might be more suitable. :pac:


  • Options
    #628
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Such a superior attitude. 80% of the people in the poll think the BAI got it wrong. If they did a bit of reading about the actual case it might stop some of them from calling people homophobes.

    If some people did some reading, they wouldn't still be referring to legislation that became obsolete 10 years ago...


  • Options
    #629
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    fran17 wrote: »
    see I tried to debate this topic with you and your ilk in the past but it quickly turned into,as it is now,a nasty personal attack.imo you sir are a virile hetrophobe and if your the tip of the lgbt iceberg then you can keep it.i wont be responding to anymore personal insults from you.good evening

    You won't get much sympathy by claiming a nasty personal attack on you when you reply with this unsubstantiated nonsense.


  • Options
    #630
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Such a superior attitude. 80% of the people in the poll think the BAI got it wrong. If they did a bit of reading about the actual case it might stop some of them from calling people homophobes.
    I'll bet 100% of those would have some choice comments on this kind of pompous response. Homophobia is very easy to spot, irrespective of the ducking and diving.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,071 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Lots of things to do with marriage, divorce, children and inheritance are complicated. And becoming more complicated with the advent of assisted reproduction and surrogacy. It's OK saying why not let men get married to each other and why don't you want them to be happy. There is no mention of happiness in marriage legislation. When our marriage legislation was drafted there was no discussion whatsoever of same sex marriages.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/index.html

    And? When adopted the constiution in 1937 13 year old girls could marry

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement