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…457910…24

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    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.

    I've edited the previous post in case someone mistook me to mean that.


  • Options
    #183
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


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

    No legal recognition given to that scenario in marriage legislation.


  • Options
    #184
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    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.

    Neither can a great many straight couples, hence the very robust adoption and surrogacy industries. It's not a reason to prevent them from getting married or having a child together until the issue of the couple in question being gay comes up though.


  • Options
    #185
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Derek Mooney's brand of radio entertainment is offensive.


  • Options
    #186
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Emersyn Bitter Memento wrote: »
    . 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.

    I think the impoverishment of this debate is shown by those who can put forward nothing more than "you're wrong", the old canard "You're homophobic", and the eloquent "you're full of shít". Fortunately the broadcasting authority will not allow RTÉ use taxpayers money to peddle the same content free propaganda.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    What I find funny about all this is that the people who are against SSM never actually provide a valid reason why they are against it. Some use religion which is not a valid reason when deciding civil matters and some try and play the children card which again has nothing got to do with it. The simple fact is that there is no reason why SSM shouldn't be introduced and if you have a valid reason then please share because I would love to destroy your argument as I'm sure everyone else could easily do.


  • Options
    #188
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    loh_oro wrote: »
    What I find funny about all this is that the people who are against SSM never actually provide a valid reason why they are against it. Some use religion which is not a valid reason when deciding civil matters and some try and play the children card which again has nothing got to do with it. The simple fact is that there is no reason why SSM shouldn't be introduced and if you have a valid reason then please share because I would love to destroy your argument as I'm sure everyone else could easily do.

    What do you mean by "play the children card"?


  • Options
    #189
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    What do you mean by "play the children card"?

    "Marriage is about children" ... I didn't realize everyone that was married had children


  • Options
    #190
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I think the impoverishment of this debate is shown by those who can put forward nothing more than "you're wrong", the old canard "You're homophobic", and the eloquent "you're full of shít". Fortunately the broadcasting authority will not allow RTÉ use taxpayers money to peddle the same content free propaganda.

    Feel free to quote my whole post and explain how your "it's not treating people differently, it's treating actions differently" thing makes sense. I didn't just tell you you were wrong, I explained to you the exact way in which you were wrong, so that response is ridiculous. The people opposing SSM can't defend their views with anything other than "waaah people keep telling me I'm wrong!" that's the real impoverishment of the debate.


  • Options
    #191
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    It's a Religious ceremony ?

    Civil marriage is a totally different thing. No one is asking the church to marry SS couples. You do realize some people get married in hotels and places other than churches right ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    loh_oro wrote: »
    Civil marriage is a totally different thing. No one is asking the church to marry SS couples. You do realize some people get married in hotels and places other than churches right ?

    I'm for SSM, Was giving a reason they may have to object.


  • Options
    #193
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I'm for SSM, Was giving a reason they may have to object.

    Oh right :D .... All the reason are so stupid its hard to tell when someone is serious or not


  • Options
    #194
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    loh_oro wrote: »
    "Marriage is about children" ... I didn't realize everyone that was married had children

    Childen are always going to be born. Marriage evolved for mostly economic reasons to regulate their upbringing and their inheritance rights. Not every marriage produces children and some children are produced outside of marriage. With SSM couples who want to be biological parents it has no real equivalance in heterosexual marriage. One of the wives/husbands will be a biological parent, their other half won't be, the other biological parent will be a party outside of the marriage.


  • Options
    #195
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Childen are always going to be born. Marriage evolved for mostly economic reasons to regulate their upbringing and their inheritance rights. Not every marriage produces children and some children are produced outside of marriage. With SSM couples who want to be biological parents it has no real equivalance in heterosexual marriage. One of the wives/husbands will be a biological parent, their other half won't be, the other biological parent will be a party outside of the marriage.


    The point is this has nothing got to do with children at all!! This is about allowing people who want to spend the rest of their lives together the same rights that everyone else gets . I think the question you should ask yourself when deciding is "Am I against other people being happy even though their happiness has absolutely no effect on my life in the slightest."


  • Options
    #196
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    sfcdub wrote: »
    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.

    This is the problem wit this debate. One poster asked me a question and I tried to be as honest, open and thoughtful as possible with my answer.
    I stated that it can be difficult to express any sincere opinion which might in any tiny way question same sex marriage in any way without being dubbed homophobic and a far right Catholic Fundementalist.
    I remember with disgust the dogmatic stranglehold the Catholic Church held us in I'm the 60s,70s and 80s. You know what? It has now turned full circle. Now, if anyone dares to question the new orthodoxy of sexual pluralism (even in the slightest way) you get castigated as something akin to a Nazi.
    Island people, herd mentality.....same group think....just applied differently.


  • Options
    #197
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    loh_oro wrote: »
    The point is this has nothing got to do with children at all!! This is about allowing people who want to spend the rest of their lives together the same rights that everyone else gets . I think the question you should ask yourself when deciding is "Am I against other people being happy even though their happiness has absolutely no effect on my life in the slightest."

    Marriage is a legal instrument. It might make some people happy or unhappy, you won't find that in the legislation. It will become very complicated when SSM couples want to become biological parents. If two wives agree that one of them should get pregnant would it be OK in law for the brother or the father of the other wife to father the child? This sort of thing and surrogacy generally will have to be legislated for.


  • Options
    #198
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I think the impoverishment of this debate is shown by those who can put forward nothing more than "you're wrong", the old canard "You're homophobic", and the eloquent "you're full of shít". Fortunately the broadcasting authority will not allow RTÉ use taxpayers money to peddle the same content free propaganda.

    The impoverishment of this 'debate' occurs because those who oppose SSM have not a single rational, logical reason to do so.


  • Options
    #199
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Marriage is a legal instrument. It might make some people happy or unhappy, you won't find that in the legislation. It will become very complicated when SSM couples want to become biological parents. If two wives agree that one of them should get pregnant would it be OK in law for the brother or the father of the other wife to father the child? This sort of thing and surrogacy generally will have to be legislated for.

    These aren't unique to same sex couples and again, can be done with or without marriage.


  • Options
    #200
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    The impoverishment of this 'debate' occurs because those who oppose SSM have not a single rational, logical reason to do so.

    Just keeping repeating the same lines over and over does not make a winning argument.


  • Options
    #201
    Packrat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Packrat


    Atheist, Not Homophobic, Against proposed Same sex "marriage" here. We do exist despite yoh wishing that we didn't.

    Dont feel any need to justify my preference to anyone either, so won't be responding to any of the abuse and ridicule which will undoubtedly follow from the 'liberal, progressive, tolerant' majority here.

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    LorMal wrote: »
    Just keeping repeating the same lines over and over does not make a winning argument.

    The request for any real reason to oppose SSM is made again and again because it is never met.


  • Options
    #203
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    LorMal wrote: »
    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'd say the issue there is that you're talking almost as if your approach to parenting is the only one that could work? People adapt to circumstances and make things work, different circumstances and approaches can work just as well. No two sets of parents are going to be same, like.


    There's far more important aspects to how a child is raised than the level of masculine or feminine influence involved anyway, I'm sure you agree.


  • Options
    #204
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    LorMal wrote: »
    Just keeping repeating the same lines over and over does not make a winning argument.

    Tell us about it! We've been saying it for ages and yet its always the same stuff about children and society


  • Options
    #205
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    LorMal wrote: »
    Just keeping repeating the same lines over and over does not make a winning argument.

    What else can we say when you wont provide any valid reason for opposing it


  • Options
    #206
    sfcdub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭sfcdub


    LorMal wrote: »
    This is the problem wit this debate. One poster asked me a question and I tried to be as honest, open and thoughtful as possible with my answer.
    I stated that it can be difficult to express any sincere opinion which might in any tiny way question same sex marriage in any way without being dubbed homophobic and a far right Catholic Fundementalist.
    I remember with disgust the dogmatic stranglehold the Catholic Church held us in I'm the 60s,70s and 80s. You know what? It has now turned full circle. Now, if anyone dares to question the new orthodoxy of sexual pluralism (even in the slightest way) you get castigated as something akin to a Nazi.
    Island people, herd mentality.....same group think....just applied differently.

    I was pointing out how you have no reason to be against SSM. Using the children argument is irrelevant. If you were so concerned about children you'd be worrying and opposing the Children and Relationships Bill, not equal marriage.

    Godwin's law. Didn't take long..


  • Options
    #207
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    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
    Explosive?

    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



  • Options
    #208
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,046 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    These aren't unique to same sex couples and again, can be done with or without marriage.

    What is unique to SSM couples is that they cannot produce children without a third party, married or not. Heterosexual couples can, married or not. Campaigners for SSM want to have equal marriage rights. But the legislation will have to cover things which have no equivalance in heterosexual marriage.

    It is not simply a matter of allowing two people to be happy. Marriage law is complicated and other people apart from the happy couple can be affected by the legislation. Our friends in Westminster spent much time deciding the issue. Was that just to make two people happy?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130617-0002.htm


  • Options
    #209
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    sfcdub wrote: »
    I was pointing out how you have no reason to be against SSM. Using the children argument is irrelevant. If you were so concerned about children you'd be worrying and opposing the Children and Relationships Bill, not equal marriage.

    Godwin's law. Didn't take long..

    Five replies in rapid succession all slapping me down.
    Sheep.


  • Options
    #210
    loh_oro
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭loh_oro


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    What is unique to SSM couples is that they cannot produce children without a third party, married or not. Heterosexual couples can, married or not. Campaigners for SSM want to have equal marriage rights. But the legislation will have to cover things which have no equivalance in heterosexual marriage.

    It is not simply a matter of allowing two people to be happy. Marriage law is complicated and other people apart from the happy couple can be affected by the legislation. Our friends in Westminster spent much time deciding the issue. Was that just to make two people happy?




    *sigh Im getting tired of saying this over and over again

    Not all heterosexual couples can have children without a third party either ... Do you understand ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    What is unique to SSM couples is that they cannot produce children without a third party, married or not. Heterosexual couples can, married or not. Campaigners for SSM want to have equal marriage rights. But the legislation will have to cover things which have no equivalance in heterosexual marriage.

    It is not simply a matter of allowing two people to be happy. Marriage law is complicated and other people apart from the happy couple can be affected by the legislation. Our friends in Westminster spent much time deciding the issue. Was that just to make two people happy?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130617-0002.htm

    How will others be affected by the legislation?


Advertisement