48 thoughts on “You May Like This”

  1. The best bit of Irish satire I’ve seen in a long long time – Excellent!

    Shame it’s only up now on a Friday evening…

  7. When you have to misrepresent your opposition, lie, and resort to dishonesty; you know you’ve lost the debate.

  8. THANK YOU “person in America that’s never met you but knows what’s best” ;))
    Great piece of work, that.

    • Really?
      They may be talking out their asses on gay marriage, but the idea that the people behind the Iona Institute believe that women should be mammies that stay at home making cakes is obviously balls. Two of their four patrons at least are professional women. They might make cakes but they also are highly qualified, successful women.
      This may be funny, but accurate? Not really.
      Bang on with the telling people what to do sentiment though.
      Hope people heard the MAtt Cooper interview last night with Patricia Casey. That’s how you hand these people their arses. Not this “oh, aren’t we clever!” bollox!

      • I’d love to hear that interview. You wouldn’t happen to have a link to it would you? I can’t find it.

  12. I generally do the opposite of what religious foreigners tell me to do so despite not being sure if abortion on demand is good or not I will be voting to allow it.

    I am just that irritated by political Islam/christianity etc.

  13. I am far from a religious nut job but the Iona Institue ad makes sense and represented my views, that I had formed independently, on the subject eloquently and clearly in a non-wankerish way.

    That video at the top is designed to promote reactionary sh!te talking from a nation of reactionary sh!te talkers.

    But sure in the land of do as you please there are of course no consequences for actions :-/

    • Please explain what the negative consequences of gay marriage would be. Your explanation should also include excuses for why we have not observed these effects in countries and states that have already legalized it.

      • If you watched and considered the Iona video you wouldn’t need to ask, but you wouldn’t get as much attention that way I suppose.

        It’s simple really but do not start nitpicking on words because I am not writing an essay for you. In the natural order of things a Man and Woman make babies together. They mix their DNA and make a new genetic variant of themselves. By and large they will be decent loving people and will raise those babies in a stable loving environment where they can grow up and learn to be similar types of individuals. It is the parents right to do that and It is the Childs right to be raised like that. A two parent Mother and father household is the ideal situation for the healthy development of a child.

        It is perfectly plausible and valid that others forms of parenting will work but they are still not the ideal. At this stage in the development of our society can we have one institution left that supports and encourages the ideal? Female and Male marriage is the ideal for the children. I would like to see one thing that is not destroyed so that people with serious senses of their own self worth and entitlement can feel good about themselves and do what is right for themselves without really considering the potential consequences for others..

      • @ Mathew – I was wondering that myself. As far as I can tell the church is worried that the general public seem to regard homosexuality as OK nowadays.
        When they should be regarding it as sexual deviancy.
        This is because those naughty gays are putting out propaganda about them not being sexual deviants.

        Disagreeing with the church on the issue of homosexuals being sexual deviants is now defined as “persecution of people for their religious faith”.
        Or in broadly protestant countries like the UK as simply “persecution of catholics”.

        • Sido what Drivel are you spouting?

          I am not religious period. Dealing with some of you self-righteous “deviants” is harder than youth defence. Read what I have written and consider it before waffling for attention.

          Also if your opinion is so right and you are so entitled to it why is everybody else not entitled to theirs? Hypocrite.

          • @sido I have tried to respond to your post of January 19, 2013 at 4:36 pm twice and I keep getting an error when I post. Grrrr.

            Now that I have the context for your first post in the second post you made I still do not see where it fits in with what either Matthew or I said.

            I interpreted your original post as being an unnecessary insult of how a religion believes people should act in a similar vain to the video above. Now that I know the context for your post I understand what you mean and I apologise if you were offended by my comments, but for anybody else who would wantonly insult people to make a point my comment still stands. If that makes sense. :-s

    • @Critical Thinking – Surely a child has the right to a loving family over an “ideal” one?

      • Of course the child does. It does not mean that we should not keep the ideal as the ideal and put the emphasis on it as the ideal.

        There are plenty of familial circumstances that are not ideal that work and there plenty that very much do not but that does not mean that we should weaken the ideal to suit other peoples sense of entitlement to something.

        As a child is created by a Man and a Woman if any circumstance arises that would require the child to be raised without both of the DNA providers then there is probably something very wrong to begin with.

        I think people of both sexes should give more consideration to the consequences of their actions in light of the damage their selfishness could/does cause to a child but I accept that I am seeking an unobtainable ideal there. While I acknowledge my unobtainable ideal I still firmly believe that outside of the death to either or both biological parents then there should be no reason why a child should be created that would not be raised by two healthy responsible conscious thinking biological parents.

        • PLEASE be specific as to how gay marriage ‘weakens’ or ‘destroys’ (your words) straight marriage. In what precise way does it act upon it to diminish it? Please answer this question as it’s the kernel of your argument and yet is consistently left unexplained.

          In general, the best parents are the one who really, really want children. Marriage is good for children because it (usually) means that people who are married have made a specific plan to have children. In most cases, it’s the intention, motivation, planning and willingness to be carers that make good parents good parents. (This is of course not to say that there aren’t parents who love their ‘surprise’ children, but this is not the model of ideal parenthood that is supposedly under attack.)

          Where it’s legal, gay couples (like straight couples who need to adopt) have to jump through so many hoops before they can become parents. They have to work, plan, endure serious scrutiny and have great motivation in order to become parents. This can only be good for children, as far as I can see.

          • @Niamh I thought I did…

            Encouraging anything that is not the ideal will have adverse consequences on the ideal. You have compromise after compromise until there is nothing left to compromise on. It’s a race to the bottom. (Take the pun or not as you see fit)

            If people want to be gay they can go be gay all day long everyday or just what is fashionable at the moment it’s peoples own choice to make.

            A child as a consequence of natural selection through the process of evolution was created by a Man and a Women coming together to mix their dna (Nature) and values (nurture) with the intention that the child perpetuates their genetic line and obviously the homosapien species. That naturally evolved process also evolved social constructs to better support the previously mentioned highly successful evolution of homosapiens.

            As far as I see it homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption is working against that model. Something that is evolutionary doomed to failure will fade out of social norms once again as a lifestyle choice once the causes, environmental (Chemical or Social) are worked out and it will become unfashionable again.
            You propose to legislate for something that is a deviation, whether you like that word or not is irrelevant, and something that in all likelihood is only a transient social construct. If we make something the norm and educate people that it is the norm either intentionally through legislation and parents passing their values down to their kids or wantonly through reckless advertising (Think Sex/Alcohol/drugs and about what the average kids disco/night club looks like) then what would have been a transient fad will become something we are stuck with. It’s a race to the bottom. (Take the pun a second time or not as you see fit)

            As a PS if we allow gay marraige and gay adoption why should we not also http://www.zeta-verein.de/en/ or any other life style choices that people are making for themselves.

  15. Check out what This Morning had on debating the issue in the UK…….really, I’m shocked people with such ridiculous views as these actually get airtime.