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

eviltwin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

How do you think same sex marriage will negatively impact on your life?

efb

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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.

Was that legislation not struck down as being unconstitutional by the SCOTUS?

Ted_YNWA

Biggest issue here is why was someone listening to Mooney on radio in first place.

dxhound2005

efb wrote: »

Was that legislation not struck down as being unconstitutional by the SCOTUS?

Not yet.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/is_alabamas_same-sex_marriage.html

But you don't have to look very far for a legislature that voted (three times) against introducing SSM. Northern Ireland.

NuMarvel

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But same sex marriage is very new, Holland 2001 being the first.

That may have been the first time it was called marriage, but civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc have been around for the last 25 years. And some of those have been the equivalent of marriage in all but name. I find it very hard to believe that any supposed negative effects of letting gay people marry come about only because their union is called marriage instead of union or partnership.

So my question again is what is marriage equality the thin end of the wedge to? And why haven't we seen it with other forms of official recognition of same sex couples?

shruikan2553

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not yet.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/is_alabamas_same-sex_marriage.html

But you don't have to look very far for a legislature that voted (three times) against introducing SSM. Northern Ireland.

I wouldn't recommend anyone following the NI method of treating others who are different to you.

dxhound2005

NuMarvel wrote: »

That may have been the first time it was called marriage, but civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc have been around for the last 25 years. And some of those have been the equivalent of marriage in all but name. I find it very hard to believe that any supposed negative effects of letting gay people marry come about only because their union is called marriage instead of union or partnership.

So my question again is what is marriage equality the thin end of the wedge to? And why haven't we seen it with other forms of official recognition of same sex couples?

We have Civil Partnerships in Ireland. Is that the equivalent of marriage?

dxhound2005

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend anyone following the NI method of treating others who are different to you.

What about Finland? They don't allow SSM and their legislation was recently upheld in the European Court of Human Rights.

shruikan2553

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What about Finland? They don't allow SSM and their legislation was recently upheld in the European Court of Human Rights.

Good for them. Back in Ireland we have no reason to not allow it other than theories with no backing and lies.

Sheldons Brain

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

It is not a case of treating people differently, it is a case of treating actions differently.

dxhound2005

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Good for them. Back in Ireland we have no reason to not allow it other than theories with no backing and lies.

A very valid opinion. When it is put to the vote hundreds of thousands of Irish people will say NO to that.

efb

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not yet.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/is_alabamas_same-sex_marriage.html

But you don't have to look very far for a legislature that voted (three times) against introducing SSM. Northern Ireland.

But that was no way based on religious belief... (NI)

shruikan2553

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A very valid opinion. When it is put to the vote hundreds of thousands of Irish people will say NO to that.

They will. Just as people would vote against divorce and treating black people as equal. Doesn't mean it is right to discriminate against minorities.

dxhound2005

efb wrote: »

But that was no way based on religious belief... (NI)

Religious belief is recognised in equality legislation there, yes. But so is sexual orientation. Not legislating for SSM is a political matter, and a matter of public policy.

NuMarvel

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We have Civil Partnerships in Ireland. Is that the equivalent of marriage?

This doesn't answer the questions I'm asking. What is marriage equality the thin end of the wedge to, and why haven't we seen them in 25 years of unions, partnerships, etc.

But let's say our civil partnerships and marriages were the same. What negative consequences are we avoiding by calling them civil partnerships instead of marriages?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is not a case of treating people differently, it is a case of treating actions differently.

However you wish to dress it up, the effect is that people are being treated differently. Do you have valid, cogent reasons for that differing treatment?

Turtwig

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A very valid opinion. When it is put to the vote hundreds of thousands of Irish people will say NO to that.

So if thousands voted tomorrow to declare disabled people sub-human it'd be a valid opinion? Numbers mean nothing, either something is ethically valid or it isn't.

BAI made a farcical decision, almost as bad as an equality officer a few weeks back.

NuMarvel

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They will. Just as people would vote against divorce and treating black people as equal. Doesn't mean it is right to discriminate against minorities.

As an aside, approval in the US for interracial marriages only achieved a majority in a 1991 opinion poll (source). That's 24 years after the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Up to that point, the majority of those polled disapproved.

Turtwig

Iirc it wasn't legalised in Alabama until 2002.

MistyCheese

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We have Civil Partnerships in Ireland. Is that the equivalent of marriage?

Nope. There are certain rights that come with marriage that are denied to civil partners.

From http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

And yet some very important inequalities remain. For example, Civil Partnership:

• does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.

• does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.

• defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is not a case of treating people differently, it is a case of treating actions differently.

That would be true if you consider gay as something you do, rather than something that you are, in other words if you regard it as a "lifestyle choice" rather than an inherent part of someone's identity. In other words, if you're wrong.

The situation as it stands is that there are limits put on consenting adults entering into marriage with each other on the basis of their sexual orientation, for NO good reason. Gay relationships and families do not have the same rights or standing under law as straight relationships and families. It is absolutely treating people differently, and while I haven't really seen that precise downward dog in the rotation of mental contortions that people go through to try and argue that you can oppose gay marriage and not be homophobic or open to criticism, it's as full of shít as the rest of them.

A very patient poster did a very long post on this on one of the last threads, goes into the "think of the children" guff among other things, recommended reading, glad I bookmarked it. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91106362&postcount=874

fran17

since the complaint was proven to be right on the grounds of lack of objectivity and impartiality,can we conclude by the poll so far that 75% of the viewers on this thread do not care about objectivity and impartiality in there media debates?

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

since the complaint was proven to be right on the grounds of lack of objectivity and impartiality,can we conclude by the poll so far that 75% of the viewers on this thread do not care about objectivity and impartiality in there media debates?

It wasn't a debate, it was an interview.

Turtwig

We could if it was an actual debate being broadcasted. It wasn't though.

fran17

eviltwin wrote: »

It wasn't a debate, it was an interview.

I stand corrected.just swap debate for media interview

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

I stand corrected.just swap debate for media interview

A debate is one thing, there needs to be total balance in a debate. An interview is another thing, if you interview a person they have to be free to talk about their life, having balance for interviews is impossible.

dxhound2005

If either or both husbands or wives in a same sex marriage are going to be the biological parent of a child or children subsequent to the marriage, how will they go about doing that? If they want to achieve it in the "normal" way that will involve having sex with another man or woman outside of the marriage.

Easy enough for the wives but more complicated for the husbands who will have to get a woman willing to hand over the child. What recognition would be given in law to that other biological parent from outside of the marriage? Would the child/children have a right to a legal relationship with that other biological parent?

fran17

eviltwin wrote: »

A debate is one thing, there needs to be total balance in a debate. An interview is another thing, if you interview a person they have to be free to talk about their life, having balance for interviews is impossible.

but that doesn't make sense.since this was a complaint on such a explosive issue I don't think it would have been upheld without watertight reasons for doing so

shruikan2553

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If either or both husbands or wives in a same sex marriage are going to be the biological parent of a child or children subsequent to the marriage, how will they go about doing that? If they want to achieve it in the "normal" way that will involve having sex with another man or woman outside of the marriage.

Easy enough for the wives but more complicated for the husbands who will have to get a woman willing to hand over the child. What recognition would be given in law to that other biological parent from outside of the marriage? Would the child/children have a right to a legal relationship with that other biological parent?

It is done in the same manner as any heterosexual couple.

Edit: Should clarify that its the same manner when one of the couple has a fertility problem as it may be a surprise to some but not all heterosexual couples can have children the "normal" way as you put it. Don't tell anyone though. If it was well known the whole marriage is for having children argument falls apart.

dxhound2005

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It is done in the same manner as any heterosexual couple.

Two men married to each other or two women married to each other can't produce a child without getting another woman or another man involved.

eviltwin

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Two men married to each other or two women married to each other can't produce a child without getting another woman or another man involved.

same goes for a lot of straight couples but no one seems to mind about that.