Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 11.45pm
MINISTER PAT RABBITTE has said he won’t be interfering in how RTÉ handles the payments over comments about homophobia made on the Saturday Night Show.
In a statement today, the Minister for Communications said that he has “never used the term ‘homophobe’ to describe those who disagree with me on issues of gay equality in general or gay marriage in particular”.
He made the comments in the wake of revelations that RTÉ had paid damages to members of the Iona Institute and columnist John Waters after comments made in relation to them and homophobia on the Saturday Night Show.
Rabbitte stated that he has “no intention of interfering in RTÉ’s management of the litigation claims against it”, but that he does expect that RTÉ “remains fully committed to its chief obligation as a public service broadcaster – to ensure the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest”.
Rabbitte described the word ‘homophobia’ as “too loaded a term to be used to categorise those who hold contrary views on what is a matter for legitimate public debate”.
However, he did add:
That said, I would also hope that people and institutions that hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate – as most politicians do – that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. If you enter the arena, you cannot expect that the Queensbury Rules will always apply.
He said that it would be a “matter of serious concern if recourse to our defamation laws was to have a chilling effect on the conduct of public debate on this issue, in the lead-in to the forthcoming referendum on gay marriage”.
Yesterday, Senator Averil Power made a call for Minister Rabbitte to advise the Seanad on how much RTÉ paid to the Iona Institute.
To date, almost 850 complaints have been received by the broadcaster over the appearance of Rory O’Neill, aka Panti, on the Saturday Night Show, and the apology subsequently made by RTÉ over his comments.
It is understood that the majority of these complaints relate to the apology.
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has also received more than 100 complaints on the issue.
The Saturday Night Show will air a debate about homophobia on tomorrow night’s programme.
- First published 4.52pm
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Should we all be homophobes now Father?
Absolutely cracked me up John. Cheers!
John Waters: http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/01/29/john-waters-to-build-gay-proof-safe-room-at-home-with-rte-damages-claim/
Why is the headline ‘Panties payments’? Surely they are Iona payments.
I guess Panties Payments sounds better?
Well done pat rabbitte,very sensible decision.
Rabbitte seems to be saying that what happened to the Iona Institute was a yellow cad not a red card offence.
I would like to have seen the Iona Institute try to make a defamation case in open Court.
Crazy situation. Only in Ireland!
Oh a Fr Ted reference, how witty and original!
Panti Rabbitte
nice ring about it
I agree Peter. But lets not forget the big political picture.
Rabbitte = new broadcasting charge = labour wanting a referendum on gay marriage when legislation allows for it already = election in around the same time = etc etc.
Is everyone on the make in this country ? Payments for what ? it was just a throwaway comment
John Waters put the common in Roscommon….
I would never pat rabbitte..I much prefer to pat hare….
The supposedly charitable status of the Iona Institute needs review by the Revenue Commissioners but will the Revenue Commissioners have the integrity and the courage so to do.
A serious question. It should not need to be asked but it has to be.
As persons who happen to have a homosexual orientation entitled to the same freedom of speech, the same opportunity Ito speak and to be heard as those people who happen to be heterosexually oriented?
Are gay people any less deserving of full equality before the law than straight people?
If not, why not?
Is the Iona Institute a Roman Catholic Taliban?
@Peter Richardson:
Peter, I’m well aware that yellow cad (sic) is a typo but it seems particularly apt when it is describes the (I)onanists!
John, nice one! I enjoyed that.
Roly poly panti rabbitte
on prime time he was brave enough to shout at Pat Carey the black sheep of irish politics
but where was he when bertie was screwing this country ?
Rabbitte speaks up when it suits him
In Zod we trust.
Have you taken your medication today. What sort of a rant is that on a story about Pat Rabitte?
Rabbitte’s own ‘loose lips’ cost the Irish taxpayer €100,000 in a relatively recent RTÉ settlement so it’s a bit rich for him to be getting all preachy on this.
More importantly, he never apologised to the taxpayer for his costly mistake.
I’m thinking out loud here, and perhaps I’ve missed multiple interviews/articles on it.
Let me preface this by saying I could be completely wrong.
I’m curious to know why I have seen neither sight nor sound from Rory O’ Neill since all of this erupted. Has he not been invited on to every radio show in Ireland since? (perhaps he’s appeared 50 times – honestly I’ve no idea, it’s an honest question).
Have RTE invited him to respond publicly, as they have done Breda O’ Brien since – and she did comment here since?
Btw, it’s worth listening to because there’s a gay man on the panel that absolutely destroys her comments. Entertaining. You only have to listen to the first 5 or 6 minutes.
Is Rory subjected to some kind of gagging order since the farce? Where is he? Why haven’t the rest of mainstream media sought him out? Or is he simply letting the drama unfold before his eyes?
Either way Rory. best of luck, and I’ll be here waiting for your reply when you think the time is right.
Pat – as you notice” Zods ” libellous and off subject contribution , was removed – well done Editor – it’s about time for The Journal.ie stood up to these type of awful self opinionated scourges !
Rory has been very vocal from the onset through Facebook/twitter/Panti’s blog using his alter egos name
Libel is old school.
In JO’N v SMcD & ors [2013] IEHC 135
I was unaware Wynnner. Thanks for clarification. Can you link the page please.
Why though has he not appeared on TV and radio Wynnner?
@ Ciarraioch
Libellous ?
ger colleran wasn’t on the questions & answers programme ?
he didn’t tell the truth about martin mcguinness ?
That’s a good point – I wonder are TV and radio afraid to have him on in case they have to deal with the backlash?
Which would mean that the debate has effectively been stopped.
Ah yeah Pat Rabbit. … I’d believe what he says – NOT
So Minister,
You won’t interfere with RTE but do the public not have a right to know how much RTE paid the very sinister IONA institute and why ?
The ties here seem to be too close with David Quinn spewing his propaganda on RTE on a very regular basis.
Transparency please !!
What is sinister about Iona and show me one verifiable link or comment of any instance of homophobia from any Iona statement or action?
@ Michael Farrelly
speaking of payments..
obama 300,000k
tubridy 497,000k
remember that
think about that tonight at 9.35pm when he sings the populist tune.. ordinary people struggling etc
Apparently JW 30k, BO’B 30k, Iona members 11k each.
They misrepresented research on parenting to infer that heterosexual marriage was a preferable environment for child rearing. The study that they manipulated didn’t even examine children raised by same sex couples.
300k
497k
i am not a huge fan of John Waters
i think he is a bit full of himself
but you gotta admit the media are attacking the heteros
if anyone says a word against same sex marriage
they are painted as the greatest beep that ever came along
Jason he won’t be able to link you to a verifiably homophobic action or statement from Iona because they don’t exist. All these keyboard critics and not one can provide a link to a homophobic statement or action.
Jesco – campaigning to curtail rights for a minority that will have absolutely no appreciable impact on them or their personal liberties is not homophobic now? John Waters claiming that gay and lesbian people only want to get married because their are jealous of heterosexual people and want to wreck the institution of marriage isn’t homophobic?
Don’t make me laugh.
How do you define homophobia Jesco? What would meet your requirements?
They campaign AGAINST equal rights for same sex couples, regardless of their motive it is discriminatory. Homophobia is an aversion to, discrimination against or fear of homosexuals. It’s very easy to understand
@Jason They oppose gay people getting married and are therefore homophobic. Simple as
Also, Why did RTÉ collapse under the pressure of this flimsy legal threat? It has been pointed out by legal professionals that what Rory O’Neill said was uttered in good faith and without malice, that as a member of a minority he was entitled to defend himself against what he saw as oppression and that in any case he didn’t accuse these individuals of being homophobic, even though some people would conclude that many of their campaigns are decidedly so.
It seems to me that there is a strand running deep within RTÉ that wishes to support this small but aggressive pressure group. Up to now, that support has taken the form of unfettered access to the airwaves, but once the national broadcaster censors the sincerely-held views of a citizen, and hands over public funds to self-appointed moral guardians, we need to start asking hard questions.
No, it’s not homophobic. In what way is it?
DISCRIMINATION BASED PURELY ON SEXUALITY!
Wow somebody forgot their weetabix
I’m sorry but the Iona Institutes support for traditional marriage does not constitute homophobia, it is a view held by many people across the nation. It was the view held by people like Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton up until not so long ago.
Just because someone supports traditional marriage does not mean they hate gay people (homophobia) and suggesting so only serves to stifle a free and fair debate.
rubbish
I hope all the pay outs went to a charity of their choice and not into their pockets.
Traditional marriage, if you go way way back, involved men marrying young girls, men having multiple wives, men legally being able to rape their wife and no divorce.
Do Iona campaign for all that or do they focus their efforts on preventing homosexuals from marrying the person they love?
Jesco,
“It is never pleasant to take a stance like this, and it must be a thousand times less pleasant to be the person who is told that important values like equality must take second place to the common good. I would prefer if the conflict could be wished away, but it can’t.” by Breda O’Brien
Supporting “traditional marriage” fine. Saying equality must take second place isn’t.
I’m confused, do you support traditional marriage, or do you oppose gay marriage?
In fact Breda is telling gays that not having equality isn’t pleasant but we must accept this for “the common good”
Pointing out she’s a homophobe isn’t pleasant for her either I’d imagine and did she accept it?
Yes Jesco, Iona supports traditional marriage, they can do so all they want. Who cares.
What you are very carefully not mentioning is that they vehemently want to deny basic civil right to a group of people, by opposing their right to get married.
If this was against interracial marriage it would be considered racist. So, hoe is this not homophobic ?
Sorry Jesco ..my comment was meant for R O’Neill…I agree fully with your sentiments
All the pro this and pro that who are commenting at the moment seem to forget that RTE recently had to fork out the big bucks for the way they treated Father Reynolds…..and deservedly so
Homo = Same
Phobos = Fear
Therefore homophobia has nothing to do with George Wienbergs interpretation , instead it is the irrational fear of duplicates …….so i guess it’s a misnomer Colm
Jesco – the issue here is not the iona institutes opinion on the matter of same sex marriage, it’s their insistence on having those opinions become the basis of discrimination under irish law.
Ailbhe peadophilia, polygamy, rape and divorce have nothing to do with traditional marriage and you are merely pettifogging the issue now.
Traditional marriage is marriage defined as the union between One Man & One Woman. I have no issues with amending the civil unions bill to allow for all the same rights heterosexuals enjoy in marriage but once again Marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Finbarr
Fr Reynolds was innocent!
@ Finbarr rte had to pay fr Reynolds because or accused of pedophilia, without proper evidence.
This is completely different to, with good justification calling someone a homophobe.
Complete red herring
Hi Jesco, marriage is not defined in our constitution. The referendum next year will be the first time the people of Ireland will define what marriage is.
Jesco, when you say traditional marriage, you seem to pick your own definition to suit your argument. You mean traditional Catholic marriage.
Have a look Jesco. This is what traditional marriage ACTUALLY is. Backed up with relevant quotes from the bible! So when you use the term “traditional marriage” know that it is a hell of a loaded term!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Hmm interesting that the labour party and feminisst all agree that we need quotas in the Dail for women to ensure better gender balance for the greater good. Using this logic children should be reared by a mother and father to ensure gender balance – is that not so ? Or does the logic somehow change when it comes to childrearing ?
@Allbhe
Folks like Iona are hell bent on making the whole world as oppressed as they feel…
They would bring back stoning if they could get away with it..
People like that use religion, politics and social issues in order to wield power.. it’s mostly an irrational fear based power, they hate gays because gay people are an easy target, an already vulnerable minority..
They are attracted to the power and mystique of Catholicism, if it wasn’t that it would be something else… These people really can’t be reasoned with… they are nutters…
@Michael
“…but you gotta admit the media are attacking the heteros…”
This is a laughable statement. What’s actually happening is that bigoted people who seek to oppress others are being called out on their homophobia.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person. Other than that, focus on your own affairs. You’ll find that your life will probably benefit greatly.
Hating is not a prerequisite for homophobia, but actively seeking discriminatory rules does. This is not a complicated concept
I think it is and I based that partly on my own experience growing as teen without a father and partly own my experiences as a parent. If that opinion is a problem for you, that is your problem.
No, that us not homophobic, by any definition
Well to play Devils Advocate, some might say children should have right to be raised by a mother and father but some gays disagreee and say that isnt a right. So it all comes down to what you consider a right.
Again, opposing marriage for certain groups is not homophobic, by any definition. It’s not nice maybe but it’s not homophobic
Well journalsit Noel Whelan clearly disagrees with you !
So what do you say to all the gays who are ctholics or christian to all the gays who are RC priests ? Do you also call them nutters becuase they have religous faith you seem to hate ?
I see my comment quickly attracted 7 down thumbs but nobody commented !LOL ! I assume the lack of comment is because Labour Party’s position on this is absurd !!!
Comments like that actually take away from the arguements for gay marriage !
Jason Davis, please define homophobia as you understand it. If you wouldn’t mind, please reference a textbook
Rabbitte will get his panties in a twist when people decide to stop paying the licence fee so as not to subsidise the Iona Institute.
@Geraldine..
I didn’t say all religious people were nutters, I said that right wing fundamentalist lobby groups like Iona are natters. I know gay Catholics, gay christians, gay priests, and also religious people who are straight too, I also know a lot of non-religious people.
The way I see it is, you can believe whatever you want
but don’t think that your religious beliefs entitle you to trample all over my rights.. because they don’t…
As an side note… it was a papal bull (permission from the pope of Rome) who gave the English (Anglo Normans) the green light to invade Ireland thus beginning centuries of oppression..
The Catholic church has been just as oppressive and abusive towards native Irish people throughout history as the British have…
We were pagans for a much longer time than we are Catholics on this complicated little island…
@Jesco and Jason…
The Iona institute and its ilk have been campaigning against gay equality for several years..
They are as homophobic as homophobic gets….
History will judge them for what they are…
In an ideal world Geraldine we would all maybe like to live like the bloody Waltons, but the world is much more complex…
Let the man who coined the term “homophobia” explain it to you.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2253328
The Iona institute say that they are defending traditional marriage. Take any one of their arguments against marriage equality and switch sexual orientation for race (children are better off with white parents, marriage should be between white people) does this sound racist?
All of the studies done on the children of gay parents show that they do just fine. Can we say the same for all the children in heterosexual households?
So long as your arguments against marriage equality are irrational you can expect people to accuse you of have an irrational aversion to homosexuality.
If you don’t like being called a homophobe, don’t say homophobic things. If you really believe that for any reason gay people should not enjoy the same rights afforded anyone else – then own your homophobia, because no matter what way you wish to dress it up – that’s what it is. According to the definition of the man who coined the term.
I agree Jesco but the problem is that a certain element of the pro same sex marriage campaign don’t want a fair debate, I actually think some don’t even believe there should be a debate. I want to hear a debate without the homophobic argument being used.
Well guess what Niall, people would like equality but for some reason there are those who argue against it – effectively arguing that homosexuals are somehow inferior or worth less than heterosexuals.
If you can provide an argument that is rational, logical and wouldn’t sound racist if you swapped the sexual orientation for race – THEN, and only then will you stop hearing the accusation of homophobia.
Niall, I can understand why you don’t want the evil of homophobia named. The truth hurts.
So are you suggesting we should take the babies off single mothers because their family won’t have a balanced gender representation? Idiotic argument with no basis or logic.
I do not think everyone who is opposed to same sex marriage believes homosexuals are inferior, there may be some in the camp who believe this but i do not think it is the prevailing view. I believe most rightly accept homosexuals are equal but at the same time they are obviously different and while accepting they should have the same rights as heterosexuals they do not believe homosexuals should have the same rights when it come to marriage because up until now this has been accepted as something between a man and a woman. I do not want to argue anybodies point for them but I want to allow them the space to argue their own points without being attacked and shouted down.
Quite right Jesco!
Niall – you have used the logical fallacy known as appeal to tradition;
“Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
The very fact that anyone would use a logical fallacy to argue against marriage equality is by definition, irrational. So their aversion to marriage equality is also irrational.
Now, what is homophobia? An irrational aversion to homosexuality..
Sorry – but if those opposed can’t argue without employing logical fallacies – their opposition will remain irrational and therefore homophobic.
Tanks Shanti for that link. I think the word homophobia is used too easily and lazily. On one of these blogs this week I was accused of being homophobic simply because I asked the honest question of what , beyond marriage, are the rights being sought. I had to wade through insults, I was told I reeked of homophobia, just for asking a question.
I think the lgbt community need to focus on a clear message and stop whinging and waving rainbow flags in everyone’s faces while thinking we all understand the agenda. People generally don’t. I think marriage for gay people should happen, and I hope it will soon. I think when gay people are integrated and have children and live the lives that most of us live they will begin to understand why society is not falling over to think about this issue at all.
Like I said, clear message, and why not close the gay bars and come to normal bars. Why not? That is another honest question and I await responses with interest.
On a slightly different topic did anyone see the excellent interview on tubs last night with Tim/ Tam?
There is insufficient acceptance and tolerance of gay people in Ireland for full integration and total assimilation to occur. Marriage equality is one more difficult step to full legal equality.
The Success of the Iona Institute in curtailing freedom of speech and of expression is a temporary setback but it will be overcome.
Homophobia can have different shades of meaning but it is valid to use the word in the sense of describing the attitude of people who would seek to deny full equality of legal rights to people who happen to have a homosexual inclination.
Instead of focusing on the coined word “homophobia”, it would be better to focus on the substantive issue of the injustice to and infliction of oppression and abuse on gay people. This includes RTE’s bizarre curtailment of freedom of expression.
I don’t think that it behoves the straight community, after its maltreatment of gay people, patronisingly to suggest how they may socialise or militate for equality.
Are you gay Frank?
Therese, that seems to be a rather personal and intrusive question unless you have romantic or lustful intentions towards Frank.
As a matter of curiosity are a right wing and conservative Catholic associated with or sympathetic to the ideals of the Iona Institute?
Peter, I’m sure Frank is able to answer his own question. I have asked a direct, honest and sincere question based on what he wrote.
Your question: it doesn’t make grammatical sense. Can you rephrase it?
Are you a right wing and conservative Catholic associated with or sympathetic to the ideals of the Iona Institute? I had omitted the word ” you” I accept that you were unable to understand my question.
I would be interested in knowing the relevance of asking that personal question of Frank in a public forum.
Ok. I understand the question. I am not a right wing and conservative Catholic. I’m a Catholic. I have no links to the Iona Institute but I believe they have every right to voice that they believe that mothers and fathers are important to children.
You’ve just asked me a personal question. I’m sure Frank doesn’t mind me asking and if he is gay and wants to get ‘married’ then then isn’t that something one does in public?
My question of you is relevant to the debate on the topic. Your question of Frank is irrelevant unless he wishes to consider it so.
Your tweets are illuminating as to your values and viewpoint. I see you spend a lot of time supporting David Quinn. Is that the “David Quinn” of the Iona Institute, by any chance?
I’m glad you think they are illuminating! I think you already know the answer to that question because if you have gone to the trouble of checking out who I am, and that’s fine because everything I say is upfront and public, I don’t hide behind a false name, then as I said you already know the answer. So why do you ask?
Because you did not declare your interests and allegiances upfront. I just reviewed some of the writing on the donum vitae blog and by a remarkable coincidence it contains a lot of right wing anti liberal Catholic fundamentalist rhetoric. Yiu have a lot of connections with right wing Catholicism although I accept your assurance that yiu are not right wing, unless you would like to collect that.
I raise this issue of your connections because of your personal pursuit of the question as to whether or not Frank is gay. I believe yiur question to be irrelevant and to be a distraction from the substance of his points.
On the other hand, your views are the views of a religious zealot who mixes in the cyber company of right wing, reactionary and repressive Catholics. I wanted to see what motivated yiur question. Now I know. It is an ugly motivation from a reprehensible source.
Peter, are you in a clandestine “though police” covet or something? Do you know what “reprehensible” means at all?
Reprehensible: deserving censure or condemnation.
In your effort to stop gays being censured and condemned you use the weapons of censure and condemnation. Is that not a bit Irish?
I asked Frank a question and it is you who has pursued an answer. If Frank does not wish to answer then that’s fine, but it is not a crime to ask, is it? You have seriously misjudged my intention, but as I said I asked Frank and not you. I have many friends and acquaintances who are gay and I have several gay twitter friends who are not prejudiced towards Catholics and categorise them and judge them with “ugly motivations”. Neither do they use the word “reprehensible”.
My views are Catholic. You may not understand what that means but it is a call to be a follower of Jesus. It is a call to not to be afraid to ask “Is it true?” of every situation and proposition. In regards to SSm I always ask “Is it true?” and follow the logic.
Is it true that marriage has always been between male and female human beings?
Is it true that consummation of a marriage ie coitus validates the marriage?
Is it true that it takes one man and one woman to create new human life?
Is it true that s/s couples are the same as o/s couples – concerning marriage that is?
It is not a crime to ask but it is a despicable and intrusive question for a right wing Catholic with an illiberal outlook to ask.
You are a religious zealot. That is your business but when you seek to ensure that your religious dogma is to be enforced by the civil law of the country you interfere. The issue being discussed is the civil law concept of marriage, not religious matrimony.
Just because something has been does not mean that it should remain so. The notion of marriage has evolved over the centuries such that a man no longer legally owns his wife and her former property.
It is untrue in civil law and it is arrant nonsense to say that coitus validates a marriage.
It certainly no longer takes a man and a woman to conceive of a foetus but even if it was so, which it is not, that is only relevant to the religious concept of matrimony. Although I know of elderly Catholics who have married when the woman is post menopausal and no priest ever objected. But that is a matter of religion, not law and my concern is with civil law, not with religion.
A same sex couple are capable of the same good, pure and wonderful love that a heterosexual couple are capable of. God may condemn the love of a same sex couple. I don’t. I celebrate all love and regard heterosexual and homosexual marriages both equally wonderful and equally deserving of affirmation.
I care not that there are those whose religions indoctrinates them into hostility towards homosexual people providing they are not permitted to act out their hatred and religious based antipathy.
Let the religious enjoy the solace of their religions and let the civil law not be interfered with.
Read ” Dishonest to God” by a devout Anglican named Dr Mary Warnock, and you will have some understanding of my position.
The question “are you gay” was once asked by the same evil people who asked ” are you a Jew”.
All humans deserve respect and dignity. It should matter not, except to those of religious disposition, what a persons’s sexual orientation is. If you fail to understand why the question is offensive, you are devoid of compassion.
Er, Katy.. I sincerely hope you speak from a place of ignorance – because your question is quite silly.
EQUALITY. That’s what they want, they’ve been extremely clear.
If you don’t understand the reasons behind the rainbow, the pride parades and gay bars then may I suggest you do a little research because these are widely known. And as for “normal” bars, what the heck is a “normal” bar? You do realise that “gay” bars are not exclusively gay right? They just offer different types of entertainment – drag queens for example.. Every pub has to have its niche to survive in this country.
Like I said – I hope your question is borne from ignorance because that can be excused, it can be fixed with the aid of information and education. But if you are presented with the information and continue to say these kind of things, then I am afraid you would then fall under the category of bigot.
Free and fair for who? Certainly not for the people who are not allowed the same rights as everybody else, why would it bother you if same sex couples could marry, will it affect you in any way? I think not.
Debbie, that goes to the heart of the matter.
Allowing the right to marry to same sex couples does not diminish our rights or entitlements in any way.
Homosexual people have only been deprived of the opportunity to marry each other because of a deluded and discriminatory view that homosexual people are not quite equal to heterosexual people.
Growing up without a father does not make you intolerant , that’s just your problem.
yes, yes it does.
oh nooooooo, this is in the wrong place completely!
He better get feckin involved, they’re using tax payers money to pay off a bunch of bigots…
and by bigots you mean
anyone who thinks men should sleep with women therefore getting them pregnant and having a family
Is Zod a planet?
No Zod, he means those who are under the impression that men should ONLY fall in love with women, and vice versa, and if they fail to comply with these orders they should be punished and discriminated against..
That’s pretty bigoted..
He basically just told Iona to grow a pair and not get offended when someone points out the offensive things they say.
Ivana bacik was running around the place this week shouting and roaring about gender equality when it comes to Politics and Buissness….She maintains that both of those do not have enough of women within their ranks and she wants to see an even 50/50 balance….But when it comes to bringing up a child she sees nothing with either two men or two women fulfilling that crucial role…some balnce there
Hi Finbarr,
Do you have an issue with single parents raising a child by themselves?
Or just an issue with two gay people raising children?
do you have an issue with hetrosexuals raising children
Of course not. I’m fairly sure my parents were heterosexuals.
Care to answer my questions?
well id have no issue with it as such if the proper reasearch would allay my fairs for the childs well being
So you oppose it until proven that the kids are alright?
“But when it comes to bringing up a child she sees nothing with either two men or two women fulfilling that crucial role…some balnce there”
No sorry you seem to imply that there is something wrong with two men or two women.
Do you want to meet some children/teenagers/adults that have same sex parents. You can judge for yourself if they’ve turned out like any other child.
And the only way to prove it is for gay couples to raise children.
Hi Dave
If you had cared to look at my side of the argument you would have kindly seen that I do not have any problem with what you are saying….My problem lies with an individual that wants equality in every walk of life except when it comes to bringing up a child
Hi Finbarr,
I am getting confused here. Can you answer yes or no
Do you have an issue with single parents raising children?
Must run dave… myself and my wife are bringing our youngest Son to a football match with his other two brothers……..All very well cared for and naturally concieved I hasten to add
That’s okay Finbarr. I don’t know you or your family and couldn’t possibly comment on or assume anything about your parental skills or how your child was conceived.
Enjoy the football match :)
adios
hdfsjkah, no I leave that to Iona.
look in the mirror mate
Sorry I’m not the one looking for research to be done before people can have kids. Nor do I think that my relationships are somehow more special than yours and need to be protected at the cost of your equality.
Well as a child reared by a mother whose husband, my father, died at a young age, I can definitely say being raised by a mother and father is better than being raised by a single parent no matter how good thet try to compensate for the missing parent. And I say without doubt the lack of a father figure is significant. SDo for the ideal family unit has a mother and father,
Don’t give two hoots ,once the child or children aren’t being abused !
Dave but you do silence discourse which is pretty wrong
Senator Ivana Bacik has also stayed silent about the fact that more than 4,000 irishunemployed people are barred from registering as unemployed on the Live Register of Unemployment and barred from the States re-training and re-education programmes – it seems Labour dont believe in equality when it comes to the unemployed – then discrimation is their Party Policy. I suppose if you hold a permanent pensions job as a teacher or lecturer, you dont have to worry about unemployment.
no1curr about your cis white conservative nonsense.
The reality is you are making a valid point and the fact you got 45 down thumbs and no comments just shows people cant really argue with the logic ? Of course no RTE journlaist would have the backbone to point to Bacik or Joan Burton the absurdity of her position. Same applies to Joan Burton – she screams about equality and then she is the Minister who created a system of unemployment apartheid where thousands of irish unemployed people are barred from Registering as unemployed on the Live Register of Unemployment and barred from the States re-training schemes. Higgins and Gilmore went to South Africa to Mandela’s funeral but they have an aparthied system of unemployment at home !
You think unemployment is a cis white problem
That sentiment is like dismissing concerns based on peoples race
“Ivana only seems to care about killing babies and her middle class feminist problems”
excuse u, white devil
pretty white yourself
and racism don’t help your cause
Is this hdsfshite bringing up abortion again?! NEVER
Geraldine, just out of curiosity, but do you necessarily see the mother/father roles as being gender specific? I mean the traditional nuclear family model would place the father as the disciplinarian, the breadwinner and the sports enthusiast, and the mother as the homemaker, the cooker, cleaner, the one who oversees the child’s educational needs (parent teacher meetings for example) and the peacemaker. Is that what you would view as the ideal, and would the gender of the particular parent really matter in this case?
Geraldine you don’t half talk a load of BS
Gormless response from Rabbitte that seems to neatly sidestep the real meat of the issue here. Firstly, it isn’t a case of the Iona Institute, John Waters, Breda O’Brien et al holding an opposing view on same sex marriage, adoption or other rights, but rather their persistence in seeking to impose their views on the minority in question, making irrational statements about the motives of gay and lesbian people in seeking marriage rights, misrepresenting studies to support their own bias and working tirelessly to wind the clock back on the twenty-first century.
Nor is it a question of “if” our defamation law has a chilling effect on public discourse. The horse has already bolted, as evidenced by RTE’s limp capitulation to the solicitors threats, and weak attempts to pass off their censorship as being sensitive to the death of Tom O’Gorman.
So are you unhappy about our slander/libel laws or unhappy that people you don’t agree with have used them ? because it has to be one or the other.
No court ruled that the comments where slander, Iona et al. just rattled a sabre and RTE rolled over and paid them off.
Iona and its leader David Quinn frequently use threats of legal action to silence their critics because they know few of them have the funds to defend themselves in court, RTE do however and have a public mandate to provide an open and balanced forum, but instead, they gave into a threat without any attempt to defend the right of an invited guest to voice his opinion.
It seems that Iona only care about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience when its their speech and their conscience and RTE seem to prove what many have thought about them for a long time, that they are a voice for the wealthy and the powerful who make only the slightest, token effort towards the apperence of balance.
Geraldine, there was actually no defamation, either as libel or slander. RTE must have been skint to cough up and to apologise. The legal costs were not worth running the risk over. Imagine trying to recup the legal costs from a registered charity, which is what the Iona Institute is. It is an irony that it is a registered and Revenue recognised charity having regard to its uncharitable views.
What the Iona Institute could not win by rational and coherent argument for its absurd position, it achieved by legal oppression. The Iona Institute appreciates that might is right. The word “bully” comes to mind. I assume that the Iona Institute will now pursue me.
@Géraldine it wasnt slander, or was thé truth
Nicely said David
Geraldine – the slander/libel laws haven’t been used, as a point of fact as RTE didn’t even contest the claims. That should not be taken to mean that they had no defense. There is a veritable gold mine of published material with which to highlight the homophobic attitudes of John Waters, Breda O’Brien and the Iona Institute within the frame of reference given by Rory O’Neill during the interview.
Perhaps David the fact that Iona stood up for what they believed was right rattled the gay lobby. They certainly are making a lot of noise!
Your refer to “gay lobby” is incorrect. The supporters of freedom to marry for same sex couples are not confined to the gay community. Large numbers of the supporters are straight people who support our gay brothers and sisters.
Very true Peter – given that opinion polls show overwhelming support for marriage equality, I would hazard a guess that the majority of supporters would in fact be heterosexuals, as homosexuality is not common enough to make up those numbers.
Pat Rabitte describes this as a ‘legitimate debate’. Who determines if it’s legitimate or not? For most gay people, having the rest of the country debating whether you should have the right to marry the man or woman you love doesn’t seem legitimate or fair. It’s insulting and humiliating. Debates seem to be described as ‘legitimate’ when public opinion is split. But public opinion doesn’t determine if something is discriminatory or not. In Saudi Arabia, woman aren’t allowed to drive and this view is well supported there. Nevertheless it’s still sexist, even if those supporting the ban are influenced by religious views. In Ireland, gay people aren’t allowed to marry. A significant minority support the current law. It doesn’t matter if they support it because of religious views or a love of ‘traditional values’. They’re still homophobes. It really is that straight forward. I strongly believe in freedom of speech. David Quinn, Lucinda Creighton and all the religious right should be allowed express their views without being subject to threats or abuse. However, people should have the right to argue against them. RTE and the government want to deny people that right. If a powerful pressure group were expressing views that black people shouldn’t be allowed marry, people should be allowed speak on our national broadcaster and describe them as racist. There’s no difference. The Irish sometimes fool themselves into thinking our society is liberal or progressive. There’s some way to go
Well said!
Everybody enjoys the same legal rights as regards slander and libel. If you feel society shouldnt have the right to debate changing the legal definition of marrige, then that seems quite a bizzare point if view. There are vlaid reasons for chnaging the defintion and there are valid reasons for not changing it. If you feel insulted and humiliated by that, thenm that is your problem – deal with it. many gay people dont want it changed.
@ Dermot D
90% of a country forced to change how they consider marriage just to suit the other 10%
now that’s insulting and humiliating
That would be closer to 25% per cent forced to accept that gay people can get married because of the wishes of the other 75% according to some polls Zod.
Geraldine, there was no libel or slander. There was restriction of freedom of expression to a person who happens to homosexually oriented.
Geraldine, there was no libel or slander.
There was restriction of freedom of expression to a person who happens to homosexually oriented.
polls are like debates
very polite and very PC
Geraldine.
Ireland does not have libel or slander, we have defamation of character.
Now, Panti described what he saw as homophobia, and it described the position and published opinions of the people he was ASKED to name.
As for redefining marriage – where precisely is it defined? You may say it’s between a man and a woman – but what do you base this upon?
Throughout the ages marriage has meant many things – it used to be all about property – and the woman was considered part of that property, hence why being raped by the man who owned her wasn’t a crime – is that the definition you wish to defend?
David, where are you getting 25% from?
Remember it was not Panti who dated the slur, it was Brendan asking him to name people. I’d say that made their case stronger.
Then answer is for lgbt to stop acting like a marginalised group and start integrating. Take the initiative. Have a very clear message, which what I can see is that marriage is the last remaining human right denied to lgbts. Even the parenting issue has moved on in the last week.
So why don’t you close the Gay bars and integrate with the broader population. Come to normal bars as couples. most couples are not more expressive than holding hands and i think you will find that people will get used to tht quickly enough. Then you will have one to one conversations which at the end of the day will have greater influence than flamboyant parades which communicate little except focussing on difference. Which will get you nowhere.
Summary,….. If you keep shouting “I’m different” people will believe you. And treat you as such. Get inside the tent. Why not?
Created not date, my pad has a mind of its own…
Gay bashing will pose too great a threat to the safety of gay people in a non gay environment. When there is full equality and full acceptance, then integration may be a possible option but only for those who desire it. It is not unreasonable that an unjustly oppressed and unfairly stigmatised minority would seek their own space.
Right wing fundamentalists can be extremely abusive to gay people.
Such right wing fundamentalists take their approval and justification from “institutes” such as the Iona Institute.
This ‘integration’ you speak of…..I do it every day of every month of every year. I get looks, I get drunk men asking ‘are you lesbians, can I join in, want a threesome, which one is the man in the relationship’.
It gets pretty tiresome. In gay bars or gay friendly bars, that doesn’t happen. I can be myself without harassment and even name-calling. So your theory of integration falls short. It’s the rest of society that needs to fall in line with reality, not us that need to fall in line with society, because we are there and waiting for the bigots to get the hell over it.
Ailbhe, truly spoken.
Katy, on one occassion I was walking back to my girlfriends house from the kiss when we came across two guys drinking in the lane. My girlfriend knew one of them so made small talk. The other guy neither of us knew. The other guy started talking to me. He asked, ‘are you LESBIANS?!’. I said yes. His response was, ‘ah deadly. So how do you….you know? Do ya take a sweeping brush and just shove it up there?’. At this point both myself and my girlfriend told him to f*ck off and walked away. As we walked away the guy shouted insults such as ‘rug munched’ and ‘dirty dykes’ at us.
Now Katy, tell me this. Was that due to a lack of integration on our part? Was that our fault? Or was that as a result of society not getting the f*ck over it?
I was insulted and subjected to homophobic abuse on the street, all because I held my girlfriends hand. And you make out its our fault……..
Kiss = luas. Autocorrect isn’t homophobic I see!
I know of a lesbian couple who had to move out of their home in Blanchardstown due to hostility and threats of violence. They flew no rainbow flags, offended no one, minded their own business but life was made a living hell for them. They now live contentedly in London.
Homosexual people and straight people are equal. We love, we feel, we desire and we are all human. If someone has an aversion to someone because of their sexual orientation, why not just ignore and walk the other way? Why intrude, why abuse, why threaten, why oppress? Why not just leave your fellow human beings in peace. They do not disturb you. You do not need to and you should not disturb them. Let us legally recognise the full legal equality of all humans regardless of the difference in sexual orientation.
Katy
I’m sure many a gay person will thank you for allowing them into your “normal bars” and being able to talk to the “normal” people on a one to one basis,and to be able to hold hands as well gosh !
I’m not sure if you are naive,ignoant or just dont get it
Calling on gay people to stop whineing and waving their rainbow flags and come into the “normal” bars is incredibly insulting and patroniseing
We can have Ruby bars, themed bars, sports bars, Aussie bars and gastro pubs but not bars for gay people who merely wish to socialise in peace . Katy’s insensitivity, her lack of empathy, her inability to see things other from from a straight perspective is disheartening.
The message seems to be. Behave identically to the straight majority and we will tolerantly make room for you.,
I realise that Katy supports full lawful marriage rights for gay people but she seems opposed to collective of gay community expression. Sad.
If you do not need to fall in line with society, why are you pushing for gay couples to be “integrated” as a marriage? Do you want everyone who disagrees with you to be gay?
Therese, the point is that we do ‘fall in line’ with society. However despite this, homophobic people feel the need to insult and abuse us. So when we socialise we like to, from time to time, go somewhere we won’t suffer such abuse.
It’s society that’s unrealistic, not us. There is nothing about me that doesn’t ‘integrate’. It’s the bigots that are the issue.
I want marriage for the same reasons as anybody else. I have no desire to be considered as different in any way whatsoever. However, people like you view us as different regardless anything we do. A lot of people have no clue I am gay until I mention my partner. It is only then they decide I am different.
Change your perspective therese, and get over it
Ailbhe
That is one of THE BEST comments I have seen, regarding all of this.
There’ve odd remark and a rather odd question. Are you a right wing ultra conservative Catholic sympathetic to the Iona Institute by any chance? Just a wild guess.
If you keep calling people who disagree with you “bigots” then you are not integrated at all. A pluralist democratic society allows different people with differing opinions to live side by side…..peacefully….without name calling and without judging others. I don’t judge you, but it seems that you have judged me….
Actually thought I was rambling but thanks Mr L.Jay. it just wrecks my head. People think of a gay person and assume they just want to rebel against societial ‘norms’. I have no desire to do so. I want to live EXACTLY like everybody else, except for the fact I want to marry a woman.
Therese, I call people that call me a rug muncher, dirty dyke, homo, queer, abomination, unnatural and deviant bigots. When they stop abusing me for existing and when they stop denying me my civil rights, I’ll stop calling them a bigot.
You tell me to integrate, I tell you to recognise I’m no different and get over it
Ailbhe marrying a woman seems a normal, mainstream and even unremarkable thing except for the people involved for whom it is truly meaningful and significant.
We live, we love, we commit, we support and all that we seek is an equal legal recognition of our relationships.
Thanks Peter, I appreciate the support
Actually that’s not true Ailbhe….I do not think that you want to rebel against societal ‘norms’. I understand where you are coming from but you say you want to live EXACTLY like everyone else — I presume you mean like married heterosexual couples — I’m afraid you can’t. Because h/s couples do not need a third party to make babies — s/s couples obviously do. Therefore s/s relationships are inherently different to o/s relationships and they cannot be compared. We are all equal in terms of dignity that is applicable to ALL human beings regardless of their sex or gender, but we are not all the same. And, in fact, neither should we be. Wouldn’t life be so boring if we were? And even if the law was changed to redefine marriage and even if you got a marriage certificate – you will never be EXACTLY the same….as a s/s couple.
Same sex marriage is an ontological impossibility and my or your opinion doesn’t change that.
Theresa, ahh, yes the false argument as to “ontology” . Marriage has nothing to do with ontology or vice versa.
You are seeking to use a semantical notion of a word’s origin as a prescriptive norm.
There is no obstacle to marriage of same sex couples. I have observed it in visiting other jurisdictions. These couples are legally married, socially recognised as married and with all of the duties and responsibilities of the married state.
Therese, you did not read my comment did you? I want to be exactly like everybody except for the fact that I want to marry a woman. How we may or may not have children is our business.
Whatever way you view marriage does not matter because civil marriage in the eyes of the law is a contract between two people. If you choose to have an opinion.on the contract I hold with somebody else, do you think I should bow to your opinion?
You choose to treat me differently, I do not choose to be different. The only difference is I want to marry a woman but you form an opinion on my relationships, I don’t form one of yours. You view me as different, seperate, unequal. Society is much like you, they but in and think my business is theirs.
Thankfully the majority now see that my relationships have nothing to do with them, I only hope that a light bulb goes off in your head some day
Peter you say “The message seems to be. Behave identically to the straight majority and we will tolerantly make room for you.”
But isn’t that just what Ailbhe said. She said she wants to be EXACTLY like everyone else.
No one asks you to bow to anyone or anything. I don’t choose to treat you differently. What you’re saying is that your relationship, ie s/s, is EXACTLY the same as h/s couples. It isn’t. And that’s a fact. It’s not an opinion. Two women cannot and never have been able to sexually reproduce offspring as a pair. It’s impossible. Therefore the relationships are not comparable.
Therese, I see that the ontological argument you made is by coincidence also featured in the materials on the Iona Institute website. Interesting coincidence that.
You ascribe a quotation to me that I did not write. Why?
What quote?
Did you not write what I quoted here >> http://www.thejournal.ie/profile/67059/we-ruby-bars-themed-bars-sports-bars-aussie-2074272/
Marriage isn’t all about children. It’s not.illegal to be married and childless. It’s not illegal to have children and be unmarried. You referencing marriage as being synonymous with having children is your only argument against ssm. It is does not hold as an argument. Marriage is a contract between two people. It does not infur that children must be produced and without reproduction the contract is void. Move on from your failing argument
Ailbhe if you want to be the same as everyone else then you need to decide if you want to be the same as every one under 14 years of age maturity or the same as adults. You’ve used the words “move on” in every argument as a defence….your arguments are not only immature but in several places they are illogical and inconsistent.
Marriage has always been directly connected with children. Always. Why? There is a perfectly natural reason which I presume you do understand. If you don’t I suggest you go out and buy a biology book.
You are right in one thing – the contract of marriage is not void because no children are conceived – but it is void and voidable….in law…. if the marriage has not been consummated ( coitus) and it is only a male and female that can be “joined together” resulting in new human life. That is not just my opinion – it is a fact. That’s where the children come into it. And up to the present day – that is what has made a marriage a marriage. Anything outside of that is not a marriage. If the people of Ireland want to redefine marriage and it carries then that’s a democratic decision with the result that a new institution of “sameness” has been instituted and the institution of marriage has been dissolved.
It’s as simple as that.
My use of the term ‘move on’ is because you seem to think children are integral to marriage, it is not. This has been explained but you don’t get it. My maturity is not the issue, your ability to form an cohesive argument that has any bearing on the legality of marriage is what is lacking.
I’ll break it down for you:
Marriage is a legal contract between two people.
Their genitalia is not part of that contract.
Their intension to have children is not a part of that contract and if they do have children, how they go about it does not have any bearing on that contract.
It’s like a contract to buy a house. What you do with that house, whether you live in it or others live in it does not affect the contract.
What you refer to is catholic marriage. The catholic church can impose any rule they wish on their members but civil marriage under state law is a contract of law and only that
Coitus and children are not synonymous. Some hetero sexual marriages do not produce children. In some cases children are produced not by coitus but by other means. Sometimes children are adopted. Sometimes a heterosexual couple decide not to have children and use contraception to avoid conception.
The remarks of Therese obtusely conflate the canonical law use by the High Court in deciding whether or not a heterosexual marriage should be declared as a nullity with a definition of marriage.
The wonderful thing about law is that it is a normative construct brought about by democratic will. The law can define marriage (not religious matrimony) as a Referendum of the people decides. This will be an exercise in democratic will, not false philosophy, specious semantics or contrived sophistry. The democratic will of the people will decide. Thankfully, the majority of the people of Ireland support full equality for their gay sisters and brothers. Homosexual orientation as a bar to civil marriage is an outmoded and discriminatory relic of the past.
We can only hope that reform is achieved peacefully in contrast to France when opponents staged violent riots against legitimate and democratic laws.
On the quotation, those are not MTV words, merely my interpretation of the position of the Iona Institute and its unpleasant bedfellows.
I wonder would Therese seek to prohibit a heterosexual couple having a civil marriage if for example the couple were unable to have children, the man was disabled and unable successfully to achieve coitus or other procreative inhibition.
It seems to be a “Make babies” definition of marriage which is what I though religious matrimony was about, not civil marriage.
By the way, I have checked out the tweets of Therese. It is pointless debating with her. She is an ardent supporter of the Iona Institute and has a very fixed viewpoint. Therese was earlier trying to harass Frank into revealing his sexual orientation.
Therese blogs a lot of religious stuff and she is what can fairly be described as a religious zealot. Therese is arguing matters of religion, not matters of civil law and legal equality.
I don’t believe I’ve said that a couple’s genitalia is part of the contract. I refer to the current legal situation where Peter (if that is the real name) rightly says that the the term Coitus is used by the High Court in deciding whether or not marriage should be declared voidable or not. Because of the inherent nature of s/s couples, a marriage between s/s couples as it stands now cannot be validated. To change that means to redefine marriage and it is no longer a marriage but a different type of legal status for both s/s and h/s couples.
As pointed out by Peter, h/s couples don’t always have children, for many reasons, but legally that is not an obstacle. The aim is not to necessarily have children but the nature of the two sexes make it possible for children to be conceived – a situation which is impossible with s/s couples – without hiring a third party.
The above is not a “Catholic” marriage. Up to recently it has been the case in all European and most other countries. Christian maybe, but not just Catholic.
BTW I’m totally in favour of State-Church separation, but I’m also in favour of State-Freemasonry separation, State-Gay Lobby separation, State-Davos separation, State-Atheist Ireland separation….. a secular state is not a bad thing for religious people, but the State’s laws must be just….and to understand the foundation of justice is another’s day work!
Sadly for you Therese , the religious definition of marriage is being replaced with a civil law concept of marriage based on the mutual commitment of the parties, endorsed by the State and owing nothing to religion.
The Irish High Court has traditionally applied the Civil Canon Law of the Church of Ireland to the nullification of marriage but as a number of Hugh Court Judges have observed, a marriage remains valid unless one of the parties seeks out a nullity.
The reason for nullity is not so much inability to consummate as a refusal to consummate. It’s a very complex subject, has nothing to do with the definition of marriage and it has been utterly distorted by Therese in an entirely specious manner. The zealot can never accept rational argument.
Incidentally, at what time will the Iona Institute be bring on your replacement for comments? Is the changeover at 7.00PM?
Peter, I’m beginning to wonder are you Frank? And please do try and be honest. I asked a simple question. It is not a crime, is it? I have not pursued an answer, but you have.
I am not arguing matters of religion but matters concerning “what is true?” and what is not true. I base my thinking on reason. Unlike other religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, i.e. a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason. If you cannot accept that then you may need to check the truth barometer.
The argument for marriage – and there is only one meaning of marriage because s/s relationships are not and never can be, even if the law is changed, be a marriage – is based on nature and reason. It’s to do with objective rational thinking, thought out over thousands of years for the good of society. Not for the good of individuals per se.
No that’s the religious perspective of marriage. You keep your nice conservative catholic matrimony, we will define civil marriage. You can have your own little club and we will.have legal, state recognised partnership EQUAL to all others.
Deal?
Ailbhe – your posts here are very well said..
As for you Therese, are you unaware of the irony of going on about reason and logic when your arguments are all based in logical fallacy?
Unless of course you mean catholic logic – which is about as logical as a red herring.
As for the questioning everything, it’s quite apparent that you do not – if you did there’s no way in this universe that you would remain Christian. Too many inconsistencies and contradictions..
Why not accept that if two people of the same sex marry that it does precisely nothing to you. It doesn’t harm you, it doesn’t negate your marriage – but denying them the right has a huge effect upon them.
Admit it. You just want to force your ideals upon everyone else rather than allow them use their own free will and make their own choices and decisions.
Therese, do you believe the state has an obligation to treat its citizens equally? Or do you believe the law can be applied with discrimination and prejudice?
A direct answer if you don’t mind.
Therese, no I am niot Frank but, based on his comments he is a rational human being and capable of reason. No doubt, if you can conjure up a reason for your curiosity as to Frank’s sexuality, and if he is back online, he will consider tell you.
The fact that something is not a crime does not make it justified.
Religion should have no place in law. Religion is antithetical to reason. It argues from a notion of divine revelation. I can explain this to you but you know this.
I prefer reason to dogma, I prefer open thinking to closed thinking, I prefer simple logic to contrived shop history but, more importantly, I value and fully respect all human beings regardless of sexual orientation.
As to truth, religious zealotry replaces truth with an unthinking and uncritical subservience to a belief system.
We cannot debate because yiu are unreasonable, disingenuous and have no interest in an acceptance of the diversity of human sexuality.
Obey your clergy and comply with the dictats of the Iona Institute. Leave the realm of reason alone. Yiu have no place there.
You were rather sly, were you not, in not revealing your support of and connection with the Iona Institute up front?
That’s what’s called an illusion. :)
Therese, you will have to accept the law when it is passed. You may not like it, you may disagree with it but it will be the law and we can look forward to many gay couples fulfilling their long denied wish to be civilly married and for their friends and family, gay and straight, to share in that joy.
Therese you are a relic of an inhumane past, a time when religion was used an excuse to make people unhappy and to control people. Thankfully, conservative reactionaries such as you cannot hold back the tide of progress. We may now have contraception and society has not collapsed. We now have divorce and society has not disintegrated. Homosexual activity between consenting males has been decriminalised and we have not all been turned to pillars of salt. All that the reactionaries do is to delay freedom for a while.
Therese, it may even happen that in time you will come to accept the change but I doubt it.
Say three decades of the Rosary.
As a matter of fact I have no connection with the Iona. I support what they do but….ahem that’s no secret. I’m totally upfront with what I believe and say, I don’t hide behind false names. Unfortunately it seems that the only counter argument you have for ssm is name calling and irrational judgements and conclusions.
We will never agree on this but I do suggest that you treat others exactly as you would like them to treat you, regardless of whether you disagree or not. If you want respect, treat others with respect.
I have no respect for your harsh and restrictive views Therese, I have no respect for the fact that you failed to reveal honestly and upfront your actual connection with and staunch support for the Iona Institute, I despise your lack of logic and reasoning and I hate that you would seek to deprive others of the benefits that you enjoy.
I think that you are a judgmental, unkind, intolerant and doctrinaire type of person and I am relieved that people of your mindset are diminishing in your influence.
I excuse you on the basis that you have been conditioned by religious dogma to have a very arid and ungenerous view of people who do not confirm to your restrictive viewpoint.
“Admit it. You just want to force your ideals upon everyone else rather than allow them use their own free will and make their own choices and decisions.”
I think that it is the other way round. Marriage as it stands has existed since marriage became legal. You are free to live as you wish but to demand that s/s couples to be “married” can only happen by redefining what the institution of marriage is and thereby changing the very nature of the meaning of marriage – perhaps the gov. should change the name “marriage” to “partnership” for everyone. Would you be happy with that? Do away with marriage licences all together and just have a partner licence.
Therese
Not so long ago a man “owned” his woman when they ” married”
Would you call that a marriage ? Or an enslavement and a subservient type if arrangement?
If Civil law is not based on reason and nature and arrived at by and through objective rational thought, then what is based on?
“Redefining what the institution of marriage is”.
Please – point me to where this “institution” is defined as between a man and a woman – besides legislation which is open to amendment.
Does the constitution define it as such? If so, please – show me where..
If you are arguing that it is so because this is the way we have always done it then I ask you to refrain from logical fallacy – the appeal to tradition to be precise. Especially as you make claims upon reason and logic.
And for the record – marriage has been redefined many, many times since we set up our legal system. Women are no longer chattel. Both parties must be over 18. You can now divorce. This was not always the case, so in addition to your logical fallacy – your appeal to tradition is compounded by your failure to recognise how this “institution” you refer to has already been redefined.
So, if you have a logical, rational reason to deny equality to your fellow citizens, please – put it out there.
I haven’t seen one yet so I would really genuinely like to see if you can do it.
Therese, you never answered my question. Is the state not obliged to treat its citizens equally and apply the law without prejudice?
“Failed to reveal” – what a strange thing to say. Is it true that I “failed to reveal” my “connection” with the Iona? No. Who asked me to reveal anything? I sign in with my Twitter account like everyone else. I’ve already told you that I have no connections with the Iona. I’ve never even met anyone from the Iona. I am not linked to the Iona. I post and tweet many articles by various people, I support the Iona in its work, like I do with other organisations, but are you suggesting that no person can make comments here if they share the same views as Iona? That’s extremism. I don’t remember having to fill out a form in order to make comments – but you know that’s OK because when people use the words “despise” and “hate” then it’s time to leave the conversation. Those words are not part of my vocabulary and no matter whether we disagree or disagree on this, as human beings we share the same planet Earth but we should always ask “Is it true?” and follow the logic.
And when you ask people to treat others as you wish to be treated, does that include affording them the same rights as you?
Would you like a stranger to stand in the way of you getting married
“we should always ask “Is it true?” And follow the logic”
Ahem..
“Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
I think logic is a subject you should spend more time learning about Therese..
Rights are not automatically afforded just because a person wants something. As I said above what you want is to use the name “married” but in truth and in fact it is not. It cannot ever be. A red ball possesses the properties red and round. Calling a green round object or a red square object a red ball does not make it a red ball. Calling same-sex “marriage” does not make it marriage. SSM is an ontological impossibility – even if all the governments make laws which go against reason and nature.
Oh dear. Reason and nature and objective rational thought is what leads one to conclude that same sex couples can never be “married” – ssm is an ontological impossibility – whether you like it or not. It’s not to do with an opinion but a fact. I think you should study a bit of science ……and logic.
Nice side stepping the issue..
With regards nature: homosexuality is readily observed in thousands of species, homophobia has only been observed in one.
As for “consummating the marriage” it only actually counts if one or other party is seeking to void said marriage.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html
Or are you suggesting that married couples should be watched to prove they sealed the deal on their wedding night like in days of old?
Please – provide something to back up your opinion, and ditch the fallacy.. It just makes your argument look cheap.
And for the record – do you pay this much attention to the sexual activities of heterosexual people once they marry? I know people who married and don’t have sex because they are disabled.. Sex for them is an “ontological impossibility”, yet the state recognises their marriage – and does not question it as they are not seeking annulments.
The sex lives of other people are really, quite frankly none of your business. Face facts, marriage has been redefined – allowing gay people to marry will have zero effect upon anyone else’s marriage, all sociological and psychological evidence shows that kids raised by same sex parents are at no disadvantage. So why do you oppose granting equality to your fellow citizens?
They’re not asking for equal matrimony (which I suspect is what you are talking about) they are asking for marriage equality. These are very separate things, the church is welcome to matrimony. Anyone who wishes to affiliate themselves with those hypocrites is more than welcome, but civil marriage? That should be an option open to all consenting adults.
Firstly Therese, you’re very diplomatic, so much so that avoid giving an answer. Please answer my above question.
Secondly, I take it you are a red ball and I am a green ball in your analogy? With your closed mind, you perceive us as opposites……wow. Do you think homosexuals are another species? Do you perceive it as an us and them?
Cast your mind back to the civil rights movement in the US. There was a perception of us and them from the Caucasians. An inability to imagine marriage between an African American and Caucasians. People believed it would not be marriage, it was wrong and the relationship dynamics would not be the same. An impossibility.
Now let’s see ourselves in 40 years time. We will look back and wonder how in the hell people could think marriage between two people of the same gender could perceive it as wrong. We will ponder why there was such debate and how it took so long. Unfortunately for you, people will look back at those that held your views and dug their heals in as misguided, uneducated and ignorant.
But you stick to your guns, fight your deminishing corner and hold.on to your memories, because SSM is an inevitability. Maybe next year, maybe 2025, maybe 2035, who knows, but it will happen. History will judge you and us and we will be smiling!
Therese, by your own admission you support the Iona Institute and its wish to impose catholic religious dogma and values on our civil law.
You evade points, you ignore points and you keep citing eason and logic when it is the case that religion is about belief, not about reason or logic.
You demonstrate an unwillingness or an inability to engage in rational dialogue.
Ontological impossibility is denied by the fact that laws have been passed in other jurisdictions enabling same sex marriage and we will Se same sex marriage in Ireland in the medium term future.
That’s me for tonight folks. First coat of paint on our sitting room walls and crappy tv to watch! Loving this cohabiting stuff.
Until next time Shanti and Peter!
Ailbhe, respect. I raise my glass to the day that you may marry your partner and share in full equality of legal recognition.
Therese, you refer to nature. Marriage is a social and legal construct. It is man/woman made. It owes nothing to nature. It derives nothing from nature.
As for your reference to reason, I have seen no argument in reason or in logic why, law permitting, a man cannot or should not marry a man or a woman can not or should not marry a woman.
Marriage is about love. The love between woman and woman or man and man is just as valid, worthy and beautiful as the love between a woman and a man.
The only impediment to same sex marriage is our law which has not kept up with public opinion.
I do not underestimate the negative power and influence of conservative Catholicism but I am confident that same sex marriage is unstoppable. It is an idea the time for which has arrived.
Cheers Ailbhe – hope to be raising a glass to your marriage in the near future!
Theresa, it appears that you have a number of people ganging up on you because they don’t like your viewpoint. But you have done well to stand your ground. At least there is still some freedom of speech, but it is under threat!
Yes, under threat from threatened libel actions by the Iona Institute and its allies. Now there is an attempt to censor use of words.
Harry even you have freedom of speech and you do the pro marriage equality movement a great service every time that you exercise it. So, by all means write as much as you wish. Yiu are very welcome to.
Not a bad idea Therese!
Therese, Harry Webb, Zod and Katy. Interesting group. The Irish fundamentalists are at it again. Ass Susan E. Philips, Breda O’Brien and David Quinn. Then put David Quinn in the group. Not exactly a gay bunch, me thinks!
Well he can go swivel for my Dublin South West vote.
Ive a feeling there’ll be a lot of swivelling
Of course he won’t interfere, “iownyas” grip is too far reaching especially in the media! Of course people can have different views, it is however a very different matter when those with opposing views on such basic human rights issues have such a large soapbox from which to spew their vitrol!………..”Rabbitte’s” normally burrow under the fence this one obviously likes the view from his perch on the top!
“Iownyas” well aren’t you just brilliant!
Absolute rubbish, the irish media by in large is anti catholic. Everyone should have a right to defend there name, the problem with the sat, night show was on that occasion there was no right to reply.
Trolling again I see Jesco!
Couldn’t be as brilliant as you Jesco ;)
And here come the trolls………lads have you nothing better to do?
So Bigjake, just give them a load of cash instead !!
Fine, give them a right of reply, let’s have a debate, but why give this discriminatory organisation money, that RTE and the government refuse to tell us the amount ?
Marriage isn’t exactly a basic human right now is
Legally threatening people isn’t a human right either.
Mikey I think people do have a human right to settle grievances with the law of the lan
I think the rights to love whoever you want override using the law to silence anyone who disagrees with you. Sorry, not sorry.
They didn’t seek a right of reply bigjake, not that they would have had much trouble obtaining a platform if necessary. Two of the named individuals are columnists in the Irish Times while the Iona Institute enjoys broad exposure on much of the states news and media.
Mikey once again there is no law on love
marriage is a social concept and members of society have a human right to comment on these societal institutions without being bullied on national TV
Do you have any idea of how ridiculous what you said is ? P.s Liberace was very happy to sue and take big damges when the Daily Mirror said he was homosexual !
“there is no law on love”
Except that gay couples can’t have the same equality as straight couples. Just that one little thing.
“members of society have a human right to comment on these societal institutions without being bullied on national TV”
If you’re gonna act like an asshat, you’re gonna get called out on it. Plus they weren’t being “bullied” since everything that Rory said can be backed up in print.
Its not like they are denied healthcare or have been the victim of mass unemployment that no one cares about
Its just they can’t get married. Don’t get me wrong I support gay marriage but its not the biggest issue in this country
As for having a civil debate on a social issue — maybe both you and Rory should think about how name calling and bullying will help your cause
Equality is a huge issue. Deal with it.
It’s not “bullying” when you call a spade a spade. Deal with it.
Of course it is
Calling somoeone a homosexual can be a form of bullying even if its true
And conceptual equality is not near as important as equality to food and water and health for example
“Calling somoeone a homosexual can be a form of bullying even if its true”
Yeah, but you straight bitches generally can’t hold your own.
“And conceptual equality is not near as important as equality to food and water and health for example”
This would be a valid point… in the 1920s. We’re hardly eating our babies in the streets and bashing in the heads of the infirm because we can’t help them, are we?
I don’t even hnow why Im trying
You have issues – why did you call me a straight bitch
Can you not have a discussion
If you think your conceptual equality is the biggest problem in Ireland in 2014 you are very self centered
“why did you call me a straight bitch”
SOBBING.
“Can you not have a discussion”
I tried. Then I got bored and treated you like the troll you are.
“you are very self centered”
Thanks!
No you lost so you started to act like a child
You lost my vote mate
“No you lost so you started to act like a child”
Oh, like the Iona Institute?
“You lost my vote mate”
I wouldn’t want your vote if it came with Gaga tickets.
nice guy
The ‘we have other problems’ line doesn’t hold water, if that’s the only problem you have with gay marriage then made you should stop complaining about and let it be dealt with so we can get to other problems, that is unless that’s just a line you use to avoid stating the real reasons you oppose gay marriage.
What the threat of a defamation writ is to the Iona Institute is what a Hurley stick is to Youth Defence.
Michael perhaps you should do something worthwhile with your life as opposed to “trying” to insult people on public forums!
i thought ”spade” was a racial slur
Michael Zod from your postings on the journal today you appear to be an odd ball and have a lot of personal problems have you or are you getting help from the medical proffesion for your illness.
Irish media is anti catholic, lol – that’s the best one I’ve heard so far this year!
There’s a f*cking angelus at 6pm daily.
The lunchtime news advertise pro life gatherings before the event starts but don’t even mention pro choice marches.
And rather than say, bleep out any references to names in the Panti interview, they cut out the entire segment, including a very well stated description of what homophobia is..
Then there’s the rest of the media – publishing the kind of twaddle that sparked this all off! Yeah, they’re so “anti catholic”..
If you manage to feel this persecuted when there has been no persecution, I wonder how you would cope with being a member of a genuine minority or oppressed group..
But is sodomy the same as marital sex? I am not sure about that!
Well said hg etc…. What is your name, could not y pick an easier one?!
Er, Harry – do you think about what other straight couples do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
If not, then why concern yourself with what homosexuals do?
If so, you may want to keep it to yourself, lest you sound like a pervert.
Says the “integrate” flop. I’ll take that as a compliment.
If you were to replace the word gay with black and homophobe with racist I wonder would they be paid off for holding legitimate opposing views then! It is complete bullshit, let’s call a spade a spade. They (John Waters et al) are homophobic pure and simple. Stop trying to dance around it.
Did you read Noel Whelans and Una Mulally’s articles in the irish times on the subject of homophobia ? Because it seemed pretty clear Whelans article was a reaction to Mulally’s more extreme views on homohpboa and her suggestion of a homophobia policeman.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2253328
Did you read the man who coined the terms description?
Jesco, I want to be seen as a full standing equal member of the society I live in. I want to be able to Marry my boyfriend. How is this going to affect you? Or anyone else in this country? Negatively or otherwise?
And what right does a sham like Iona have to deny me that right or dictate the terms of even discussing it?
They ate not charged with the responsibility of ownership of granting these rights, so please tell me why it is you think they should be able to?
Well Dave there are several you tube videos of lesbain activist Masha Gessen saying that she thinks there should be gay marriage and that marriage should be abolished altogether. So you have to face reality there are different opinions in this in the LGBT community and many gays mock marriage as a hetro norm. You cant blame John Waters or Breda O brien or Davind Quinn for the feelingsa and opinions of those gay people.
@Geraldine
That people personally oppose gay marriage is not an issue. Some people are for marriage for gay people. Some are against. I keep hearing that some gay people are not in favour of being allowed to marry but I’ve not met any myself so I’ll have to take your word for it.
That people feel it is their right to DENY equal rights to other people based on their own opinion is a MASSIVE issue.
That people feel they can say what they want and DENY the right of other people to challenge what they say is a MASSIVE issue.
That RTE have given into a shady, bigoted and backward “institute” is a MASSIVE issue.
Iona were called out on their homophobia and threw a tantrum that their “mammy” RTE gave into. But Iona are a double standards “institute”. They demand the right to free speech but seek to deny it to others.
They are an insidious, hate-filled entity which has a minority of supporters. But judging from the majority of comments on these articles, the vast majority of people are in favour of equal rights for all.
@geraldine, do you expect every gay person to have the same opinion?
Geraldine,
Meesha Gessen?! An angry lesbian. What are the chances…
But seriously, I’ll ask again, how is my marriage gonna to affect the people you mentioned!?
What business is it of theirs??! What impact does it have on THEIR lives?
suzie orman called an audience member ignorant
because he said marriage should be between a man and a woman
now if a hetero person called her ignorant
there would be uproar
wouldn’t there ?
Geraldine, I’m presuming that you are heterosexual?
If so…
How would you like it if you weren’t allowed to marry?
How would you like it if organizations like Iona aimed to trample on your rights and stir up hatred and prejudice against you because of your sexuality? would you stand for it? Would you tolerate it? …
Put yourself in someone else’s shoes and then tell me how you feel….
Just because some gay people may not want to marry doesn’t mean a damn thing. There are straight people who don’t want to get married either – should we ban all marriage for the sake of those people?
You are arguing the fallacy of composition:
“The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the “reasoning” would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
Your aversion to marriage equality is irrational by definition.
And good for you. So come to normal bars, close the gay ones, and stop the marches that say “I’m different” because as long as you do that, everyone will believe it.
Make the message simple….lgbts have equality in every other respect except marriage. Given that civil partnership is in place, and parents rights legislation is on the stocks, sell this as a minor issue, not. Major one.
Just saying this will be a better way of getting the general population, who actually don’t think about this at all, on board.
Stay calm and keep integrating. Infiltration is such a better battle plan than marching the soldiers up the hill….
Equality is not divisible and negotiable. An unjustly oppressed and an unfairly stigmatised minority will take safety, affirmation and reassurance in its own space.
When full equality is gained there can be discussion of integration.
I would not be inclined to direct what any group of people should do. There is a right of free association and people should be entitles to socialise as they please.
Gay bashing is still a major risk factor.
Why do we have gay bars? Well let’s see.. There’s still those out there who feel the sexual orientation of another person is any of their business.. When I meet someone, I really don’t care who they are attracted to – and if someone tells me that they are gay my response is usually “and?”. Because IT DOESNT MATTER. I can see that, and so can many others, but there are still those who take umbridge with seeing gay people be affectionate with one another in public, or for simply seeing a transsexual out in public at all. There are still those who argue to deny rights to gay people purely because they are gay.
Until those people realise that their behaviours are inherently homophobic and therefore wrong (the way that we are supposed to look upon racism and sexism) then they make members of the LGBT community feel uncomfortable in your “normal” bars.
When the heterosexual community deals with it’s pathetic prejudices, you will see more integration. In the meantime, those of us who aren’t homophobic have a great time integrating with the gay community in gay bars.
Just suggesting what might help you actually achieve your objectives. It’s beginning to seem that some people might prefer to continue a state of inequality so the they have something to whine about…..
( she puts on helmet and flak jacket)
Santi I think you should start going to bars, afraid to offend anyone by by calling them normal. What do you call bars what gays won’t go to?
There was a time women were not allowed in bars, then there was a time they couldn’t have a pint. What changed it all was not the bar burning, but simply women doing in, and asking for the pint.
Someone said equality has to come before integration.
I think that wont work.
Come one, join us in our bars? Please?
Join in. Don’t be precious.
They’re called pubs Katy. There’s no “normal”.
And for what it’s worth, I’m straight. I’m not being precious, I just did a better job of trying to understand the issues the LGBT community face..
I listened to what they had to say. I didn’t judge. I wasn’t homophobic.
Perhaps you should try it, stop being so “precious”..
Katy Star, we now see your attitude. Deprive gay people of the opportunity to socialise and to feel comfortable in their own chosen social environment. Straight people like yiu are hardly a good advertisement of a welcome for and a recognition of the validity and equality if gay people.
850 people complain to RTE about unfair treatment of gay people, and they don’t bat an eye.
4 people compain to RTE about unfair treatment of Catholics, and they flip over themselves to apologise.
How can we trust RTE to deliver a fair and even broadcast over the upcoming debate?
You’re hilarious. Do you write for RTE?
@Michael Zod
It’s always the homophobes like you that obsess over anal sex, sodomy and other arse related things….
Most gay men don’t give a damn about it..
strange that isn’t it?
Perhaps there’s some latent arse banditry within you eh?…
Nasty Zod
@ Frank Doyle
” most gay men don’t give a damn about sodomy ”
is the sky blue ?
is the grass green ?
There’s no debate about having you committed, that’s for sure.
Homosexuals are consenting adults engaging in legal sexual activity.
Pedophiles wish to engage in sexual acts with children who are classed as minors and are therefore incapable of consent. Without consent sexual activity is rape – which is illegal.
These are extremely different situations, and your attempt to conflate the two is really quite disgusting. I would consider trying to put homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia to be grossly offensive, and most certainly homophobic.
Idiot
@Shanti
I was just about to inform Zod of the same thing but you beat me to it :)
I for one, am sick of this debate.
RTE are spineless, as is Rabbitte…
Anyone with half a brain can see that the Iona institute trades in homophobic rhetoric (amongst other backward and hate-filled crap).
It is always good to know what moderates such as yourself think ?
@ Frank Doyle
hahaha
people in prison greatest fears
1-death
2-sodomy
3-increased sentence
@Michael Zod Shannon..
Get a Grip…
Failing that…
Get a Life…
Failing that..
Feck off…
According to WWN Vladmir Putin will be contributing ;-) let’s hope Brenda O’Connor gets what’s coming to him.
If Iona are so wonderfully religious, I’m sure they won’t mind if I burn them at the stake.
I’m sure most of the world would love to burn your lot at the stake
What would constitute “your lot” upthepylons?
Everyone loves a fabulous gay and no one likes flop asshats like you. NEXT.
“The Saturday Night Show will air a debate about homophobia on tomorrow night’s programme.”
Fiver says this really means twenty minutes of ranting by David Quinn.
donal acts like he was the only young person that had to suffer cancer
nobody says a word
somebody says marriage should be between a man and a woman
they have a ”debate”
Lay off the meth.
@ Mikey Faulkner
“The Saturday Night Show will air a debate ”
gay people will talk uninterrupted
pro hetero marriage people will be cut off again, and again and again
“gay people will talk uninterrupted”
That’d be a first for an RTE program.
“Pro hetero marriage people”, you know it won’t be banned right?
@Mikey
David Quinn gives me the heebeejeebees..
He looks awfully botoxed.
@Mikey
Deep seated- repressed- neurotic rage- tends to tighten the facial muscles…
Allegedly…
;)
Campaigning organisations can’ be charities in Irish law so what’s the story with Iona being a charity and getting money from RTE and their recent ads? https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1
Europafitness, I checked the Revenue Charity number of the Iona Institute. I fail to see how it legally qualifies as a charity in light of its campaigning and advocacy activities. It’s charitable status should be revoked. It is not a legally valid charity.
Were they one of the groups that refused to comply with requests from SIPO? Genuine question – I know there was a few I just cannot remember specifically whether Iona was on the list.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that pat rabbitte could really do with a good kick in the balls. I certainly don’t mean to incite violence and definitely it should not be malicious but an aul gentle funt up the groin might be enough to get some of our politicians back on track.
For an excellent article on why Mr Rabbite is talking rubbish, and the Iona people really are anti-homosexual bigots, see Jessica Gerson in the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-gerson/dear-opponents-of-marriage-equality-heres-why-i-call-you-a-bigot_b_2981744.html
@Eoin Bairead
Excellent article and spot on Eoin..
Pat Rabbitte would do well to consult his dictionary and use his very intelligent mind to understand the meaning of homophobe/homophobic and homophobia. Fortunately for him he’s never been subjected to it, denied a right to marry the person he loves, obstructed in his public career because of it or just called homo in the streets.
As a gay and (married to my husband here in California) I can tell him as can Panti and anyone who has grown up gay, that denying equal rights to homosexuals such as equal
Marriage and adoption rights with no scientific evidence that this has any negative impact on the institution, or on the raising of healthy well adjusted children is by its very nature homophobic. His reluctance to understand this shows a possible ingrained homophobia in his own character. Politicking with this type of response just shows that he’s either ignorant or afraid to stand up for what is right. I like you Pat, but are you a leader or a coward? RTE must be made fully accountable for their ill judged knee jerk reaction to a couple of threats from Iona. I thought Labour was a better beacon of social fairness. He wasted this opportunity.
The headline is very strange. It’s like the journal is trying to make a laugh of the situation with Cheep innuendos.
Hi there – that’s not the case at all, just to reassure you on this point.
Aoife, at least TheJournal and a few other sites are covering this issue! Thanks! I wonder if a response from a minister would make it to any newspapers.
Thanks Aoife
Aoife
you are stunning
you remind me of australian oscar nominee Judy Davis
Rabbitte probably calls a spade a ‘soil displacement unit’. A person who is against equality for gay people IS a homophobe. Why not have the liathróidí to say it. God knows you Rabbitte on enough when it suits you.
Lest we overlook the core issue, the Iona Institute has successfully managed to inhibit freedom of speech, it has effectively misled the media and deprived the majority of the population which supports full legal equality for people who happen to have a homosexual orientation from having a full and free voice.stopping those who oppose the Iona Institute from naming the true nature of that vile and malevolent institute inhibits a free and open debate.
Great damage has been done to media freedom in Ireland. The rest of the media will be cowed by the supine manner in which RTE caved in.
The Iona Institute’s views do not represent the majority view in Irish society no matter how hard they strive by oppression to impose their views on others.
It has been an inglorious and undignified time for RTE. RTE has been shamed by its surrender to the Iona Institute and its record is forever blemished.
There was a time when RTE was not afraid to allow, even encourage, free and open debate but no longer has it that courage. It has lost its way and that must be the fault of its leadership. I doubt that the majority of producers and journalists in RTE supported the decision of senior ,an agreement to surrender to the browbeating by he Iona Institute.
An ignominious time for RTE but at least the Iona Institute is revealed for the real threat that it poses to civil liberty and to fundamental rights . Let us focus on removing the charitable status of hat malign and reactionary body.
Nicely said Peter
God made Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve!
My favourite fairytale is Sleeping Beauty. I can guess what yours is.
Zod, you seem to have what Freud referred to as anal fixation.
@Andrew McMahony
God made nothing..
We evolved you idiot…
Legend. But I don’t think many here will appreciate the quality of the lyrics.
The sad irony is that Michael Zod Shannon can abuse and insult people who happen to have a homosexual orientation without restriction or inhibition but a person who happens to be homosexually oriented is not permitted freedom of expression.
Michael Zod Shannon is allowed abuse that freedom he denies others. Sad.
can two men reproduce ?
no.. but god knows we keep trying
Harvey Milk
@Michael Zod..
You’ve a cheek to quote Harvey Milk..
However, gay men have and do reproduce.. I know several gay fathers…
Can two men reproduce, yes… if they choose to involve women, surrogates etc..
If we are to continue with the Adam and Eve analogy for a moment..
Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel.
They were the only people on the planet apparently.. So who did Cain reproduce with? His sisters? His mother? Some “hairy people”?
It may sound catchy but it just throws up different questions about the story you base your catchphrase upon.. So the bible opposes homosexuality but not incest or possibly bestiality?
It’s a very silly catchphrase to throw around if you think about it. Perhaps you should give your opinions a little more thought in future?
Who said that Cain and Abel were the only ones on the planet? You are reading into the text Shanti! Isn’t that what is called “eisagesis”.
” Homophobia is a horrible word. It is defined as “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”. In ordinary usage in the current debate, the term is even harsher. Those who accuse others of being homophobes are not only branding them extremists but also suggesting they hate gay and lesbian people. Given its potency, it is an adjective which, if used at all, should be used sparingly.
The suggestion that anyone who disagrees with full equality for gays and lesbians is homophobic is surely a misuse of the word.”
The above is a very short quote from Noel Whelan’s article on homophobia last weekend in the irish Times. Now Mr Whelan’s lomg term support for LGBT is well known so maybe it is worth considering what he said ?
( I am assuming it is ok to quote him from a copywright point of view ?)
By that rationale Geraldine, should Iona be allowed to redefine equality or marriage to suit their ends?
@Geraldine
If you are are of the opinion that LGBTQ people should be actively denied the same rights that are automatically afforded to straight people without a single thought, then you are homophobic.
I’m sorry but there is no other way to say it. There are various extremes of this aversion to the allocation of rights to LGBTQ people. Some people find the whole idea of gay marriage a bit uncomfortable. Some find it inherently offensive to their own beliefs. Some feel it undermines their own marriage for some reason. There is no law that states you cannot hold these beliefs. This is as it should be.
But let’s be realistic about what category this belief places you in if you don’t support equal marriage.
If you do not believe that LGBTQ people should enjoy the same rights as a straight person, then you are a homophobe.
Because to deny the rights of another person, a human being who is doing no harm to anyone, based on your own belief, opinion, faith, religion or mindset means there is an inherent disorder within you and a belief that there is something dysfunctional in the people that you are denying rights to. Because otherwise why would you seek to deny them the rights that you enjoy?
Your disorder harms other people. You might not think you’re harming other people by denying them rights. You might not even care. But you are.
@ Geraldine Joyce
for a country that took it up the hole from bankers and politicians we seem to be very homophobic
ironic :)
The only situation where one could say they where opposed to equal rights and protections for gay people (yes that is what Iona oppose, not just gay marriage) and not be homophobic is if they supported such views, in good faith, on the basis of information that they did not know was incorrect, in other words, if they where ignorant.
The members of the Iona Institute been shown information and studies that disprove the supossed basis of their objections to gay rights over and over again but not only do they continue to hold their anti-gay views, they often pass off scientific fraud and misrepresentation of reputable studies to lend credence to their beliefs.
There is only one way to describe that, a campaign to deny gay people not only the basic protections of the state but also full human rights in the form of the right to protection from harm, the right to family life, the right to access education, employment and legal remedy, for little more then the fact that they are gay, in other words, homophobia.
Geraldine a horrible word for a horrible attitude of horrible people. The people in the Iona Institute are horrible people.
I am not allowed use the word ” Homophobe” but I am allowed say “horrible”.
The Iona Institute shows its true colours by restricting freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
@Peter
well said…
They are definitely one of the more horrible groups in the country..
I can’t see what positivity they bring to the table…
sadly they have a lot of media sway…
Mystery financial backers from America apparently…
@michael, not every gay person engages in anal sex. You seem to be fixated with it. Grow up and stop acting like an idiot!
Geraldine.
I will see your opinion piece and raise you one by the man who coined the term “homophobia”, and his description is more in line with the one given by Panti on the Saturday Night Show..
Glad to see you’ve Zodded off Michael :-!
Pat Rabbitte , youse are liar , youse said it yourself , but ,were youse lying when you said that you were a liar ..
John Waters is a lovely man who writes beautiful Eurovision songs ..
remember waters playing the piano ?
we were
the rock n roll kids
rock n roll
was all we did
A caveman. Proof god doesn’t exist. At last.
I look at the comments of Michael Zod Shannon and other anti marriage equality commentators and I note a thread of anger, irrationality and obsessiveness on their part in the lives of others. One might be forgiven for thinking that they have a phobia about something. Let me think. Is it a phobia about change? Is it a phobia that our laws will not reflect their religious beliefs? Is it a phobia that homosexual people would be treated as legally equal with heterosexual people or is it perhaps that they have a phobia about homosexual people?
I can only pose the questions. Please make up your own minds. But the answers seems obvious to me and hopefully they will be as obvious to others.
Well done to RTE! It put up the scatty Susan Phillips as one of the panelists who opposed the permission to use “homophobia”. Ms. Philips, a notorious opponent of the decriminalisation of homosexual practice and an obsessive opponent of same sex marriage put up a cringeworthy and embarrassing performance on Saturday Night. Averil Power and Colman O’ Gorman wiped the floor with her.
The Iona Institute may have won the compo battle but it has lost the war of opposition to marriage equality.
And then we see Breda O’Brien’s inarticulate son trying to argue her position from the audience.
I thought Breda o briens son was quite good actually although I didn’t agree with him on the marriage position.
I also do not think that any one should be fired for being gay. I’m not sure though that this actually happens? In the convent school my kids go to there is an openly gay teacher and girls do bring girls to their debs. There must be more gay teachers, statistically, so it is a valid question to ask are they hiding. Nobody is bothered. There is so much more to be bothered about these days. The bullying agenda faces homophobia dead on, and there are regular mental health awareness interventions. And before you attack me, this is about teen depression, which can be coming from a place of uncertainty about sexuality or a feeling of being in a minority.
Life has moved on you know, in particular in the last decade.
Seems to me that on these fora debate is just not allowed. I hope the forthcoming referendum debate is more open and calm.
Shanti, what is wrong with being mentally ill? Ok to exclude or insult the mentally ill then is it?
Call me gay but don’t accuse me of being mentally ill.
Says it all. Look around, there are lots of marginalised groups. You are nearly there, get the marriage rights and relax.
As a country we could lead the world in equality of sexual orientation if we net about it in an effective way.
I’ve taken an intèrest in this debate in the last week because most of the time I don’t think about all this.
I was surprised to be attacked for asking the honest question of what rights remain on the Agenda for lgbt. I was told I reeked of homophobia. Charming.
Eventually too people answered my question , the answer being, marriage, parenting and giving blood.
The blood is an epidemiological issue and indeed I can’t give blood my of because I had jaundice once.
The parenting issue, legislation is on the stocks.
My advice is change the message. It should be that “we are not different, and in fact marriage is just a tiny step to complete the process which introduced civil partnership.”
By having flamboyant marches and an unclear message you miss the chance to influence the majority who, quite frankly, have more to worry about. The more noise you make the scarier it is.
Start with closing gay bars and come to normal bars. Hold hands like everyone else. Most people don’t display affection in any greater way, in most pubs. Integrate with the wider community and you may be surprised at how much influence you will have.
And by the way, marriage is often overrated. Be careful what you wish for!
Good luck with the campaign. I will be voting yes.
The quality of the marriage is not relevant to this topic. It is access to full equal marriage legally indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage thereby recognising the full equality of gay and straight people regardless of sexual orientation.
Your questions were answered over and over again but you chose to ignore them
- you said “I find a lot of gay people self obsessed and uncompromising” “having gay bars and waving rainbow flags are just annoying” could you be more insulting?
you suggest closing gay bars and come to normal bars – what are normal bars Katy? So gay bars are abnormal?? Charming.
I would hold hands like everyone else but the real fear of abuse stops me – so I’ll hold hands with my partner in normal gay bars and my advice to you is do a bit of research before mouthing of on a topic you clearly have no understanding of.
@ Katy Star
the message should be that “we are not different ?
they are different
they act different same as travellers
having flamboyant marches only forces their sexuality in everybody elses face causing anger
Kathy. Taking an interest in the debate in the last week (however well meaning) and commenting such rubbish clearly shows your lack of understanding of the gay and LGBTQ struggle for equal rights. Maybe after you’ve lived it for a lifetime or listened to some real open gay friends (that doesn’t include your hairdresser) you might be better informed. Our Gay Pride celebrations are an irritation? Our flamboyant rainbows? They’re there to promote our cause and show the less socially educated that there’s still a struggle against the posts of the pasts.
Right. Katy.
The reason that there is a pride parade.
LGBTQ people have been marginalised throughout history, discriminated against and targeted. They were forced to keep their sexual orientations a secret – they were labelled as “mentally ill” and have had all sorts of horrible and more importantly – untrue things attributed to them.
They were made to feel ashamed by society – made to feel inferior, like they were not worth the same as their heterosexual counterparts.
The purpose of the pride parade was to say, “No. We don’t have to be ashamed of who we are – we can stand proud”.
I linked you to a piece by George Weinberg, inventor of the term “homophobia” who explained that it was the people who felt the need to discriminate against the LGBT community who had a problem – not the LGBT community.
People will always discriminate – but they should be aware of when they are doing it, and be mindful of how damaging their discriminations can be. Until this is widely accepted throughout society – the pride marches and gay bars will remain.
Perhaps you need to meet some gay people – it’s clear you haven’t if you actually believe anything you have written here. They will tell you how they are discriminated against – if you listen, you will understand why you got jumped on here..
Shane the point is that I am trying to understand. My cousin can come to my local with me, but I can’t go to her gay bar with her. Well I’ve never been invited. As a matter of interest can I go to a gay bar with my husband, would we be welcome? It does not feel like that.
When I said normal, I mean in the social scientific sense, the norm is the position of the majority.
I haven’t referred to mental illness or anything like that. To do so would be abhorrent.
All I am saying is that from the perspective of being a heterosexual who supports gay marriage, your message and media will not connive, but rather alienate.
People get scared, face it, you need to remove the fear.
Who above referred to my gay friend as my hairdresser? What a stupid stereotypical comment.
I thought he debate last night was very weak generally, though Colm O Gorman as always was excellent.
Calling people homophobic when they are seeking to understand will get you nowhere.
And I’m sorry but I still hate the flamboyant gay pride thing, it reminds me of the unionists in the north. I think we’ve had enough flag waving and marching. Get real and integrate. IMHO.
Do you think all heterosexuals are the same?
I am woman and have always worked for equal gender rights and equal participation in society. There is still considerable work to be done in this regard.
@Joe Dunphy
My gay hairdresser. Lovely. We’re re are you coming from?
I know more about this than you assume. I have seen the hurt that my cousin caused to her parents when she came out. I was one of the family members who struggled to pick up he pieces of their broken hearts and mediate and explain and help but got labelled homophobic just because I tried to explain the grief being experienced by her parents about their lost dreams, and the fear they had for the quality of her life.
I think once marriage is granted, why the need to keep shouting “we’re different” ? What is that all about? I thought you wanted the same rights?
I do find gay people less compromising than others, often about little things. That’s a view based on my own experience of my gay friends. Perhaps it’s because they don’t have the responsibilities that come with marriage and parenting, so maybe that will change when marriage and parenting are allowed for everyone equally.
End.
Jeez Peter that was a joke. Wait till you have kids…
You helped her parents pick up the pieces? What about your cousin? Did you support her at all? Have you tried talking to her and more importantly, LISTENING to her about how it’s affected her to realise that she was gay?
It’s no wonder your cousin doesn’t invite you to gay bars.. If I was gay I would to want you around me either – your support for the notorious alphabet troll and the uber catholic Therese shows you up for exactly what you are.
You don’t care about the LGBT community, you’re just like the Vatican and Iona – your words describe care and a desire to be inclusive, but it’s as plain as day that you have a problem with gay people. You’ve had their reasons and their experience explained to you and you refuse to see it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. This is precisely what the term homophobia was invented for.
You have a problem Katy. It’s time you checked your privilege, put yourself in a gay persons shoes and tried to empathise.. Otherwise, you are a homophobe.
Katy Star and her attitude are very good reason for the continuation of gay bars. The comparison of gay pride parades with triumphalist unionist marches is revealing and disturbing. Katy Star, you have real issues with the gay community. If you don’t like gay affirmation, I suggest that benign indifference would be enough. Please don’t seek to direct to to suggest to the gay community how it should act or conduct itself.
If you can’t understand, then just butt out and mind your own business.
Your arrogance and pure idiocy are amusing Katy. ‘Helped the parents pick up the pieces after discovering their child was gay’??? What about the child who needed more help. All I can see with you is a busy body pretending to do good. I bet you have gay friends who think you are a rampant fool.
And if you need any help with the law, I can tell you that anti discrimination laws make it illegal to refuse you entry to any gay owned and operated business (bar or bathhouse, whatever). But you’ve never been invited. There’s a reason for that. You’re just a woman too stupid and narrow minded that would most likely take offense at anything that threw gay in your face. You’d see men kissing, drag queens, happy people and rainbow flags. The shock might just kill you and put an end to your ridiculous commentary on here.
Seriously Katy. Quit while you are behind.
Me and my partner (we are straight) had lots of fun in The George, the drag acts were great and nobody there gave a toss that we were straight (except the guy who was disappointed my partner was).
I have lots of friends who are in straight couples who go out to gay bars quite frequently – so really Katy, whether or not you would be welcome is ENTIRELY down to you and your attitude. If you walk in to the bar and realise that everyone in there is a person – just like you, then you should be fine. On the other hand, if you think they have anything to apologise for, or that they should “tone down the gayness”, well – then you will have a problem.. You don’t get gay people coming into the local and asking them to gay the place up a bit so why should a gay bar tone it down?
I think if all the protesters and fighters on both sides of this argument put the same time and efforts into fighting against domestic abuse, alcoholism and drug use in Ireland, we’d live in a much better country, and have a a better standard for the “sacred institution of marriage” everyone is striving for Ireland to have . Let gays marry, they want to be happy and be in a loving relationship, not harming anyone. Defining homophobia and suing for being called a homophobe is counter productive to any equality argument.
Pat is right. As a gay man I am getting tired of this debate. To many people getting their knickers (panties)in a twist.
Tom O Shaughnessy
as a straight man i am tired of this stomach turning painfully one sided ”debate”
the gay people talk uninterrupted
then the straight people are cut off and patronized by RTE (who are 99% made up of hetero people)
Am my own here, maybe there is another thread.
See you all later.
Last question… Politics is about the art of the achievable.getting marriage through is achievable, if you go about it the right way.
Don’t throw all the toys out of the pram, you may need them later.
Katy Star, patronising to the end.
have your say