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

Annasopra

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?

Has it? Examples please

foggy_lad

B0jangles wrote: »

What happens now if the anti-crowd simply refuse en masse to be involved in any broadcast discussion of marriage equality?

Could they effectively prevent ALL discussion of marriage equality on the basis of this decision?

If they refuse to participate the broadcaster should make a statement to that effect and then play the part of devils advocate in the debate offering debate and discussion to counter that being offered by those present for the discussion.

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

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?

Nothing to do with long life .You are using the argument that because beliefs have been around for thousands of years (longevity) it means they are correct (legitimacy)

This is just not correct and the examples of slavery and treatment of women show that.

Is that simple enough for you ?

JaffOs

ScumLord wrote: »

So basically they're saying gays can't discuss their rights without religious oversight?

I wonder will it work in the opposite way, will every time that heterosexual marriage or life style is discussed on air will it be mandatory for a gay representative be present to keep it balanced???

amacca

I'm conflicted here

I don't think a complaint about someone supporting same sex marriage should even be entertained

but then again, it was a complaint against Derek Mooney…………..

Hmmm, quite the dilemma.

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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

the issues with attempting to debate with your good self pope is firstly you very quickly descend into the gutter with your childish attempt at rebuttal.but secondly,and more importantly,i don't know who you are but imo you certainly are not a regular poster like the rest of us here.

Kiwi in IE

fran17 wrote: »

the issues with attempting to debate with your good self pope is firstly you very quickly descend into the gutter with your childish attempt at rebuttal.but secondly,and more importantly,i don't know who you are but imo you certainly are not a regular poster like the rest of us here.

After reading this ridiculous post I had a look at both yours and PopePalpatine's statistics. You have made 431 posts and he has made 2763!

fran17

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

After reading this ridiculous post I had a look at both yours and PopePalpatine's statistics. You have made 431 posts and he has made 2763!

you don't understand.im not referring to the numerical figures so don't be making assumptions

NuMarvel

fran17 wrote: »

you don't understand.im not referring to the numerical figures so don't be making assumptions

If you didn't mean regular in terms of frequency, what did you mean?

Or is it hetrophobic to ask that?

Kiwi in IE

fran17 wrote: »

you don't understand.im not referring to the numerical figures so don't be making assumptions

Can you elaborate on what you did in fact mean then? Please humour me.

PopePalpatine

fran17 wrote: »

The issues with attempting to debate with your good self Pope is firstly you very quickly descend into the gutter with your childish attempt at rebuttal. But secondly, and more importantly, I don't know who you are but IMO you certainly are not a regular poster like the rest of us here.

What's "childish" about it? At least I can spell "heterophobe", and it really does sound like the ex-leader of the BNP's whinging. It's like you calling me "anti-white" for opposing Apartheid.

SpaceTime

Hopefully he's spotted this thread and others and realises that most of Ireland isn't in fact a big load of pedantic, mildly homophobic asshats.

VinLieger

fran17 wrote: »

you don't understand.im not referring to the numerical figures so don't be making assumptions

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I think Fran like many times previously you have backed yourself into an illogical corner and now will either just drop off the face of thread or continue to dig your hole until you find something to take offense at that will give you an out

_Redzer_

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

A doctor and some random farmer plucked from a field do not have equal footing in an argument about medicine, same goes for this, if you want to debate about science you're gonna actually need to know something about it.

I hope you get banned for calling me a heterophobe. I'd be banned for calling you a homophobe.

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

you don't understand.im not referring to the numerical figures so don't be making assumptions

Is it the quality? Because his posts are far higher quality than your own. Could you refer us to those points against same sex marriage that you have made previously btw?

MrJones1973

We live in a society where 50% of the population are not treated fairly in custody battles. 95% of males lose contested cases. So we want to extend a broken debased franchise? im all for gay couples having all the same rights. But the institution itself needs revisiting/revising. So I might not just bother voting at all. Confusing view-sure! The whole relationship package needs a look-but what do we do throw out a fig leaf of gay marriage! Im not even sure if the gay community is demanding this strongly. Is it?

efb

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

We live in a society where 50% of the population are not treated fairly in custody battles. 95% of males lose contested cases. So we want to extend a broken debased franchise? im all for gay couples having all the same rights. But the institution itself needs revisiting/revising. So I might not just bother voting at all. Confusing view-sure! The whole relationship package needs a look-but what do we do throw out a fig leaf of gay marriage! Im not even sure if the gay community is demanding this strongly. Is it?

Find out next Sunday at the march for marriage

MrJones1973

They should be as miserable as the rest of us!

NuMarvel

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

We live in a society where 50% of the population are not treated fairly in custody battles. 95% of males lose contested cases. So we want to extend a broken debased franchise? im all for gay couples having all the same rights. But the institution itself needs revisiting/revising. So I might not just bother voting at all. Confusing view-sure! The whole relationship package needs a look-but what do we do throw out a fig leaf of gay marriage! Im not even sure if the gay community is demanding this strongly. Is it?

Arguably, allowing gay people to marry will go some way towards fixing problems with the family court system. Judges who would be inclined to automatically give custody to the mother, will have to consider each case on its merits when faced with a family of two fathers or two mothers. That would hopefully in turn affect how they deal with cases of heterosexual couples.

Separately, the Child & Family Relationships Bill will oblige judges to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in cases of custody and access. It will also set out how the judge will make this determination.

Shakespeare's Sister

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

He hates heterosexual people?

Piliger

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

They should be as miserable as the rest of us!

They should be free to choose to become as miserable as the rest of us

Ash.J.Williams

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And anyone else you deem as "not normal"? What happens to them?

nothing...just live their lives like the rest of us

MrJones1973

I find it hard to argue against Same sex marriage. To me it is a no brainer but you have to treat others with respect. Liberal Ireland told us Divorce was a good thing-a right. What did we (men) get-screwed. Not me Personally (Thank God) but a lot of guys. I know there is reform on this topic but a lot of people are seeing the price of "progress"-everything goes " and not liking it. We have to look at family life as an entirety. These issues are to a large extent side issues but unless you deal with them the vote could be lost.

My own view is it will be carried but if there is much apathy plus the forces/feelings I outlined above-it could be lost though Im yet to be convinced there is massive support for this.

SpaceTime

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about divorce there?
The idea that you could be locked irrevocably into a failed marriage (as was the norm here until 1995) was absolutely insane.

The current law around divorce is still crazy with 5 yeae separation requirements etc etc etc

krudler

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

I find it hard to argue against Same sex marriage. To me it is a no brainer but you have to treat others with respect. Liberal Ireland told us Divorce was a good thing-a right. What did we (men) get-screwed. Not me Personally (Thank God) but a lot of guys. I know there is reform on this topic but a lot of people are seeing the price of "progress"-everything goes " and not liking it. We have to look at family life as an entirety. These issues are to a large extent side issues but unless you deal with them the vote could be lost.

My own view is it will be carried but if there is much apathy plus the forces/feelings I outlined above-it could be lost though Im yet to be convinced there is massive support for this.

Yeah the option of being stuck in a failed or abusive marriage was much better.

efb

efb wrote: »

Find out next Sunday at the march for marriage

When and where, do you know?

I'd like to go.

Thanks

MrJones1973

My point on divorce is this-it was told its a right which it is but no qualification was really put on it bar the 5 years. Thus your wife can shack up with another man and you can find yourself out of your home with 10 hours access to your kids. This happens-we all know. No fault divorce is not a good idea. I would like to see the meat on the table regarding changes to custody before extending a broken franchise.
We also need to sort out the issue of surrogacy and sperm donors etc. Germany has banned it and they are hardly conservative overall.Many gay couples require a suffocate for obvious reasons as do heterosexual couples. That needs to be addressed as well

I wonder with divorce rates close to 50% in the Uk if they are all abusive marriages?! What effect does that have on kids? Not against divorce but needs brakes and changes.

efb

This Sunday, 3pm, City Hall, Dame St, Dublin

MrJones1973

This is helpful in debating

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/the-way-we-argue-now-1.1898216?page=3

NuMarvel

The National Union of Journalists have written to the BAI with a complaint about this decision.

The requirement of fairness, objectivity and balance has now been interpreted to mean that broadcasters are required to seek out alternative views in a range of programme settings. Any matter 'of current public debate', to quote the phrase used in the BAI note, is apparently deemed so sensitive that researchers, producers and presenters have to make contingency provision for the expression of a counter-opinion in all settings.

Our members, researchers, producers and presenters, are now put in a very difficult position in evaluating stories and, in particular, studio interviews. The BAI would appear to be singling out discussion on so called same-sex marriage, imposing restrictive conditions even before the government has provided wording on a possible referendum on civil marriage equality, never mind setting the date.

Full letter here.