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
12357…24

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    LorMal wrote: »
    Homophobic, fundamentalist, fascist, Christians then..?

    I very much doubt a yes vote could be expected from those who fit that discription!


  • Options
    #123
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    And everyone who does not support SSM is homphobic? Including the hundreds of thousands of people who will vote NO in the referendum?

    Of course not, they are like the iona insitute. Against gay people being treated as equals but not homopho.....wait a second.


  • Options
    #124
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,296 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    LorMal wrote: »
    Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that Mooney cannot use RTE broadcasts to push his own agenda.

    I agree with that bit. But it should also stretch beyond referendum issues. I used to listen to liveline (comedy reasons) and it was so one sided it was funny.


  • Options
    #125
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    You're free to leave whenever you want, but would you mind telling us why?


  • Options
    #126
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »



    Probably because prejudice has blinded your thinking facilities. Try and think harder.

    When the no voters cannot give a rational reason themselves, what is the point in me trying to think them away from homophobia?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    Don't agree with the ruling, but maybe its not a bad thing to get these homo...oh sorry "conservatives" on the radio to promote their discriminatory and anti-equality stances. Hopefully people have enough common sense to see that they're crazy.

    Maybe if it was an actual issue to debate, then fine, but its not. Its about some people wanting to deny equal rights to certain people because they believe some book and want to force their views on the country. Simple as.


  • Options
    #128
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,474 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »
    Today I was buying a coffee but I didnt want a latte, I wanted an espresso.

    The lad in front ordered a latte. I compliained on the grounds I didn't like lattes.

    The lad didn't get his latte

    I happen to be having a latte at the moment, I'm offended by your obvious prejudice against this milky deliciousness! :mad:


  • Options
    #129
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    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?

    Well, you must be of the few people in the country that didn't know. Anyway, I'm fed up at the way Mooney has used his show to peddle his approval of the whole 'same sex marriage' agenda. Any regular listener to the show will surely have picked up on this. The only Mooney show that's bearable these days is the Friday one which concentrates on nature but no doubt he'll subvert that one too in due course.


  • Options
    #130
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    krudler wrote: »
    I've asked this question so many times on boards and never been given an answer.
    I'd love a actual, rational reason to oppose SSM without using religion or children, in the "the gheys will be raising gay adopted babies" nonsense argument.

    The purpose of marriage and the role of parents withina marriage when children come into the equation are legitimate points of discussion.
    As a parent, I have witnessed how myself and my partner have played different but equally important roles in the lives of our children. One of us is the Dad and has a masculine influence, the other is the Mum and has a feminine influence. I find both are very important.
    i have no issue with SSM but I am a little uneasy about the normalisation of same sex parenting.
    I don't know if I am right or wrong to be a bit uneasy...but I do think it is early days and I worry when any slight doubts that I might have will be drowned out by a chorus of 'you're homophobic' ' Bible Basher' etc. i am not homophobic and I am an atheist.


  • Options
    #131
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    There's also going to be a referendum on the Constitutional reference to the woman's place in the home. Does this mean broadcasters can't discuss the issues women face in the workplace or the gender pay gap in case it's seen as unfairly promoting one side over the other? Will they be required be have a contributor who's position is that women belong in the home, for balance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    LorMal wrote: »
    The purpose of marriage and the role of parents withina marriage when children come into the equation are legitimate points of discussion.
    As a parent, I have witnessed how myself and my partner have played different but equally important roles in the lives of our children. One of us is the Dad and has a masculine influence, the other is the Mum and has a feminine influence. I find both are very important.
    i have no issue with SSM but I am a little uneasy about the normalisation of same sex parenting.
    I don't know if I am right or wrong to be a bit uneasy...but I do think it is early days and I worry when any slight doubts that I might have will be drowned out by a chorus of 'you're homophobic' ' Bible Basher' etc. i am not homophobic and I am an atheist.

    You should do some research into Same Sex Parenting to ease your uneasiness.

    I hope Im not denied rights on "uneasiness"


  • Options
    #133
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There's also going to be a referendum on the Constitutional reference to the woman's place in the home. Does this mean broadcasters can't discuss the issues women face in the workplace or the gender pay gap in case it's seen as unfairly promoting one side over the other? Will they be required be have a contributor who's position is that women belong in the home, for balance?

    Could this affect RTE's Rose of Tralee coverage??? :eek:


  • Options
    #134
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    There's also going to be a referendum on the Constitutional reference to the woman's place in the home. Does this mean broadcasters can't discuss the issues women face in the workplace or the gender pay gap in case it's seen as unfairly promoting one side over the other? Will they be required be have a contributor who's position is that women belong in the home, for balance?

    I doubt it. The right wing American-funded conservative groups wouldn't have enough time/money to give out, seen as all their efforts are focused on denying equality.. sorry, thinking of the children.


  • Options
    #135
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    LorMal wrote: »
    The purpose of marriage and the role of parents withina marriage when children come into the equation are legitimate points of discussion.
    As a parent, I have witnessed how myself and my partner have played different but equally important roles in the lives of our children. One of us is the Dad and has a masculine influence, the other is the Mum and has a feminine influence. I find both are very important.
    i have no issue with SSM but I am a little uneasy about the normalisation of same sex parenting.
    I don't know if I am right or wrong to be a bit uneasy...but I do think it is early days and I worry when any slight doubts that I might have will be drowned out by a chorus of 'you're homophobic' ' Bible Basher' etc. i am not homophobic and I am an atheist.

    But we're not talking about children, we're talking about gay people who want to marry, that's it. Straight people can marry and never had kids, either by choice or for medical reasons or whatever. Is their marriage redundant? No, they're afforded legal protections and the same rights as people who do have children.

    What about gay people who simply want to marry and have no intention of having or adopting kids (different matter entirely) and just want the same legal rights the rest of us have? What's to oppose about that?

    The question I have asked repeatedly is aside from kids and religious beliefs, what's the rational reason to oppose same sex marriage?


  • Options
    #136
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Notably this idea of "marriage inequality" when in Ireland everyone is able to get married on the same basis, two consenting adults of different gender. There is no discrimination. The institution of marriage may not suit what everyone wants to do, but that is a different issue.

    So you're saying that gay couples can already get married?
    LorMal wrote: »
    The purpose of marriage and the role of parents withina marriage when children come into the equation are legitimate points of discussion.
    As a parent, I have witnessed how myself and my partner have played different but equally important roles in the lives of our children. One of us is the Dad and has a masculine influence, the other is the Mum and has a feminine influence. I find both are very important.
    i have no issue with SSM but I am a little uneasy about the normalisation of same sex parenting.
    I don't know if I am right or wrong to be a bit uneasy...but I do think it is early days and I worry when any slight doubts that I might have will be drowned out by a chorus of 'you're homophobic' ' Bible Basher' etc. i am not homophobic and I am an atheist.

    Ultimately, marriage and parenting are separate issues. People, whether gay or straight, don't need to be married to become parents. And many people marry and never become parents, either by choice or circumstance.

    That's why krudler specifically asked for a reason that didn't include children. The right to marry isn't a right to raise children. Gay people have been raising children in Ireland since at least the 70s, and that's going to continue regardless of the referendum next year.

    As an aside, there was an interview in the Indo earlier this week with gay couples with kids if you want to have a read - http://www.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/two-mums-two-dads-one-mum-meet-irelands-modern-families-30499529.html.


  • Options
    #137
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    sfcdub wrote: »
    I doubt it. The right wing American-funded conservative groups wouldn't have enough time/money to give out, seen as all their efforts...
    Are you opposed to foreign organizations funding domestic lobbying, or just the organizations that you disagree with?

    I can think of plenty of international organizations that fund and lobby for particular policies in domestic Irish legislation, including abortion and SSM. They tend to be viewed as benign, but either foreign organizations funding Irish policymaking is wrong, or it isn't...


  • Options
    #138
    feelgoodinc27
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭feelgoodinc27


    Total over-reaction.


  • Options
    #139
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    krudler wrote: »
    But we're not talking about children, we're talking about gay people who want to marry, that's it. Straight people can marry and never had kids, either by choice or for medical reasons or whatever. Is their marriage redundant? No, they're afforded legal protections and the same rights as people who do have children.

    What about gay people who simply want to marry and have no intention of having or adopting kids (different matter entirely) and just want the same legal rights the rest of us have? What's to oppose about that?

    The question I have asked repeatedly is aside from kids and religious beliefs, what's the rational reason to oppose same sex marriage?

    its the thin end of the wedge maybe


  • Options
    #140
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    LorMal wrote: »
    The purpose of marriage and the role of parents withina marriage when children come into the equation are legitimate points of discussion.
    As a parent, I have witnessed how myself and my partner have played different but equally important roles in the lives of our children. One of us is the Dad and has a masculine influence, the other is the Mum and has a feminine influence. I find both are very important.
    i have no issue with SSM but I am a little uneasy about the normalisation of same sex parenting.
    I don't know if I am right or wrong to be a bit uneasy...but I do think it is early days and I worry when any slight doubts that I might have will be drowned out by a chorus of 'you're homophobic' ' Bible Basher' etc. i am not homophobic and I am an atheist.

    If you're so concerned about the 'normalisation of same sex parenting', then you'd actually be opposing The Children and Family Relationships Bill which would 'clear the way for same-sex couples in civil partnerships to jointly adopt children'.

    So you're opposing SSM for no reason. I hope its just because you haven't educated yourself on it, rather than a fear or hatred of LGBT people.


  • Options
    #141
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Well, you must be of the few people in the country that didn't know. Anyway, I'm fed up at the way Mooney has used his show to peddle his approval of the whole 'same sex marriage' agenda. Any regular listener to the show will surely have picked up on this. The only Mooney show that's bearable these days is the Friday one which concentrates on nature but no doubt he'll subvert that one too in due course.

    That's fair enough, Mooney is well known for his soapboxing. However it does strike me as a particularly strange case to make a complaint and to have it upheld over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    foxtrot101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 907 ✭✭✭foxtrot101


    The BAI came out with some nonsense last year called the The Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs. Which means broadcasters “may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate”. In others words they think the great unwashed are far too thick to make up their own minds on contentious issues, so they're saving us from ourselves.


  • Options
    #143
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    efb wrote: »
    Could this affect RTE's Rose of Tralee coverage??? :eek:

    Don't make promises you can't keep!!


  • Options
    #144
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Are you opposed to foreign organizations funding domestic lobbying, or just the organizations that you disagree with?

    Just those promoting anti-equality messages.


  • Options
    #145
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    So you're saying that gay couples can already get married?

    No. But there is nothing stopping gays from getting married, although they do not wish to do so, consequently discrimination should not be implied.
    There's also going to be a referendum on the Constitutional reference to the woman's place in the home. Does this mean broadcasters can't discuss the issues women face in the workplace or the gender pay gap in case it's seen as unfairly promoting one side over the other? Will they be required be have a contributor who's position is that women belong in the home, for balance?

    This is mere distraction, a usual tactic with discussion on this point. The Constitutional reference to the woman's place in the home has nothing to do with equal pay.


  • Options
    #146
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    And there's me hoping that Mooney would be taken off the air for his general pontificating and acting the sap attitude. No time for him on the radio. Or Darcy.


  • Options
    #147
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    sfcdub wrote: »
    Just those promoting anti-equality messages.
    "equality" is a loaded term, just like "pro life" and "pro choice"

    What you're effectively saying is that you're ok with international organizations funding and supporting campaigns that you agree with, but not those you may disagree with.


  • Options
    #148
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    fran17 wrote: »
    its the thin end of the wedge maybe

    To what though? Countries have been formally recognising same sex relationships for nearly 25 years now. If something bad was going to happen by extending full marriage rights to gay couples, wouldn't we at least see signs of it by now?


  • Options
    #149
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    conorh91 wrote: »
    "equality" is a loaded term, just like "pro life" and "pro choice"

    What you're effectively saying is that you're ok with international organizations funding and supporting campaigns that you agree with, but not those you may disagree with.

    For example, I disagree with a certain organisation who support the retention of a law which can be used to discriminate against teachers (fortunately its being changed).

    I'll disagree with any group, right or left wing that oppose equality.


  • Options
    #150
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    To what though? Countries have been formally recognising same sex relationships for nearly 25 years now. If something bad was going to happen by extending full marriage rights to gay couples, wouldn't we at least see signs of it by now?

    But same sex marriage is very new, Holland 2001 being the first. Marriage legislation being mostly very old never even contemplated the possibility of SSM and it was never specifically disallowed. So in recent times while some legislatures were passing SSM legislation, other were proscribing marriage for the first time as being only between one man and one woman. It is a very live political debate around the world. This is from the Alabama legislation 2006.

    Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    No. But there is nothing stopping gays from getting married, although they do not wish to do so, consequently discrimination should not be implied.

    So gay people can marry, they just can't marry the people they want to marry.

    Preventing people from marrying someone of the same gender without just cause is discrimination. There must be valid, sound, rational reasons to treat a group of people differently from everyone else.

    What is your just cause for denying marriage to same sex couples? What are your valid, sound, rational reasons?


Advertisement