But surely saying someone is homophobic in this day and age is defamation in itself?
If its untrue then yes, but if theyve written a series of articles saying scarfwearing will lead to eternal damnation and allowing scarfwearers to marry will lead to the death of everyone on the planet and excessive parking charges in dun laoghaire then no
[quote=âThe Wild Colonial Bhoy, post: 897664, member: 80â]i know absoultely nothing about the law so I am an even playing field with fooley when it comes to knowledge on this topic. However I would have a lot more common sense than fooley. The reason RTE entered this cadit quaestio and paid out is that they felt paying out a small amount now was better than going to court when it wasnt a slam dunk & potentially losing a lot more
Iona must have felt that had functus officio
The dramatis personae may not have felt that fiat justitia ruat caelum in this situation & just wanted to pay up[/quote]
mendacem latina esse oportet
FOAD
Sorry Peter, Iâve just realised what youâre getting at here, forgive me for not seeing it earlier. If its advice on how best to realise youâre gay and subsequently how to address it, I am not the man to speak to on this forum, you should try DMâing forum expert and alright sort @All Change Please
The salient point in this is what, exactly, constitutes a marriage. Should all people be equal in the eyes of the state? Absolutely. Should a religious group, with freedom of belief, be forced to bless such arrangements? Iâm not so sure. Many religious people (and I speak from personal experience) would not consider a civil wedding a âmarriageâ. Itâs all semantics to an extent, but one could argue that if the state recognises a religion, it has no place defining the beliefs or practises of that religion.
Itâs pretty clear the question is about a legal marriage and that no one gives a shite what a church thinks.
I would think itâs fair comment to call somebody homophobic based on the following:
This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. Itâs not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because theyâre envious of it; This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing; It is a deliberate sabotage of the cultureâ, continues Waters, âand the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satireâŚ. But sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2014/01/17/are-iona-breda-obrien-and-john-waters-homophobic-was-rory-oneill-right/#sthash.KVnyqsNg.dpuf
That is not really an issue for debate. There should be none. My understanding is that in the uk, there are moves afoot to force religious groups to accept and bless gay marriage. That is a contentious issue. For the record, live and let live is my number one belief, and supersedes all others. I do get vexed when religious groups of whatever persuasion try to inflict their own view of reality upon others. The state, all states, should be entirely secular. Religious beliefs should be entirely free and entirely private.
Youâre trying way to hard to recover from that INTERNET BEATING you received over the weekend, move on, grow as a human being and youâll get back to your dull self in no time. Feel free to give your patented dumb rating btw :rolleyes:
[quote=âSidney, post: 897694, member: 183â]I would think itâs fair comment to call somebody homophobic based on the following:
This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. Itâs not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because theyâre envious of it; This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing; It is a deliberate sabotage of the cultureâ, continues Waters, âand the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satireâŚ. But sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2014/01/17/are-iona-breda-obrien-and-john-waters-homophobic-was-rory-oneill-right/#sthash.KVnyqsNg.dpuf[/quote]
His argument would be equally strong (or otherwise) , were he talking about divorce, which puts the above into perspective.
In the above piece, Waters:
i) claims âthe gay lobbyâ âwants to destroy the institution of marriageâ
ii) places gay people outside of society and human civilisation
iii) claims gay people are attempting to sabotage âthe cultureâ (whatever that means)
iv) ârelish the destructionâ as a result of iii)
I would have thought thatâs as blatant a example of homophobia as youâre likely to see published anywhere.
Have John Waters or the Iona Institute yet come up with a single valid reason as to why gay marriage will âdiscreditâ or damage the concept of marriage between a man and a woman?
On what is this bizarre belief based?
[quote=âSidney, post: 897716, member: 183â]Have John Waters or the Iona Institute yet come up with a single valid reason as to why gay marriage will âdiscreditâ or damage the concept of marriage between a man and a woman?
On what is this bizarre belief based?[/quote]
Why are you asking us Sidney? We are unlikely to know the answer. Your best bet would be to ask the Iona Institute.
Mind how you go though. They might be like the scientologists, and next thing youâll be posting from a boat in the South Pacific.
[quote=âSidney, post: 897706, member: 183â]In the above piece, Waters:
i) claims âthe gay lobbyâ âwants to destroy the institution of marriageâ
ii) places gay people outside of society and human civilisation
iii) claims gay people are attempting to sabotage âthe cultureâ (whatever that means)
iv) ârelish the destructionâ as a result of iii)
I would have thought thatâs as blatant a example of homophobia as youâre likely to see published anywhere.[/quote]
I am asking only as a matter of academic type interest, but is being anti gay marriage, in the eyes of the law, the same as being anti gay? Does anyone know? I can only presume there must be some kind of semantic difference, otherwise, why would rte have shelled out?
[quote=âSidney, post: 897694, member: 183â]I would think itâs fair comment to call somebody homophobic based on the following:
This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. Itâs not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because theyâre envious of it; This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing; It is a deliberate sabotage of the cultureâ, continues Waters, âand the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satireâŚ. But sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2014/01/17/are-iona-breda-obrien-and-john-waters-homophobic-was-rory-oneill-right/#sthash.KVnyqsNg.dpuf[/quote]
Where do you even begin with that⌠society and human civilization founded on marriage??? Up until 300 years ago (later even in parts of the country) we were practising Brehon law- That allowed for multiple wives, divorce, a womans right to sexual satisfaction, homosexuality, it even allowed a woman to get pregnant from another man if her husband couldnât do it and a host of more such stipulations that would be regarded as liberl in todays world. Our people were ahead of their time in many respects until they were forced to practice cannon law that can only be described as repressive, destructive and enslaving of woman in particular. âŚ
Essentially, marriage was always just a business arrangement, with the obvious importance of offspring to carry on the family fortune, people got satisfaction whichever way they wanted outside this business arrangement. What John really means is that civilization didnât begin until the church became the centre of power and dictated what people can and cannot do with their lives.