Dr John Murray of the Iona Institute
From the Irish Times letters page…
Sir, – Patsy McGarry in his report on a debate on the upcoming marriage referendum has misrepresented two things I said in my 15-minute speech in this debate (“Historic marriage equality debate held at King’s Inns”, February 20th). First, he reports that I said that a Yes vote would lead to marriage being abolished and no longer existing. What I said was that marriage, as it now is, and historically has been understood, as a union of one man and one woman, would no longer exist.
Second, he reports that I said that other relationships, such as civil partnerships and guardianships, “cannot be placed alongside marriage as equally good”. What I actually said was that “other relationships and family forms cannot be placed alongside marriage and the family founded on marriage as always equally good for family and children. No other relationship or family form . . . has the capacity to provide a child with a loving mother and father united in a comprehensive life-long, publicly and legally committed union”.
Right so.
Marriage referendum (Irish Times letters page)
He was completely misrepresented there.
Ahh go and ask my big gay ass Dr John Whingebag!!!
“Doctor”
Any lamp can become a doctor these days.
His doctorate is entitled: “The Role of Religion as a Basic Human Good in the Moral Theory of Germain Grisez”.
Im offended by your statement.
We have several lamps in our house that are fine with marriage equality thank you very much.
Are they turn on Jimmy?
Hah!
well, you need to be a doctor to split hairs accurately.
Speaking of splitting heirs, didn’t Solomon have 1,000 wives? Isn’t that a historical marriage? What about Genghis Khan? Or the Roman emperors?
Proper marriages only began after the beginning of the Catholic Church.
Does that mean the various married popes and priests had valid or invalid marriages?
“life-long, publicly and legally committed union”
I can imagine their thoughts on divorce, so. Equal-opportunity misery for all!
Is he the anti gay marriage doppleganger of Gerry Buttimer?
I was thinking the very same. Love that Murray styles himself “Doctor” – another classic example of Iona’s penchant for deception and self-aggrandisement. One wonders what august institution accorded Murray that title – Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne or perhaps Trinity or UCD? Or some other small US religious-based establishment no one has ever even heard of ?
Degree in skyfairyism with minor in 2000 year old book studies :)
NUI Maynooth (the seminary)
University of American Samoa.
The late Ian Paisley was routinely called ‘doctor’ even though his PhD was honorary (he wasn’t a Reverend either as he ordained himself). Martin Luther King with a PhD in theology is called ‘doctor’, too. You don’t need to denigrate the Iona representative on the basis of an honorific he’s allowed to use even if I think it is the height of pretension.
I was wrong WRT Paisley’s reverend status – sorry
The issue is that he was misrepresented by a national newspaper. At a time when the media is beginning to show itself as utterly lacking in objectivity on nearly any subject whatsoever, this just undermines the yes side at a time when it needs t be getting its act together.
True.
But I can still laugh at his doctorate.
well my PhD has been widely discredited. it doesn’t stop me from posting my bullpoo opinions to the nation..
Do I need a PhD to make bullpoo comments too :(
Doesn’t look he was misrepresented at all.
Sky Fairy Doctor: “First, he reports that I said that a Yes vote would lead to marriage.. no longer existing.”
What I said was that marriage, as it now is, and historically has been understood, as a union of one man and one woman, would no longer exist.”
Sky fairy doc is claiming McGarry misrepresented him by saying he – the Sky Fairy doc – said a ves vote would mean marriage would no long exist. He clarifies this by saying he meant a union between one man and one woman would no long exist.
It’s hardly marriage between man and sheep that’d no longer exist.
Regardless, a ves vote would not stop marriage between a man and woman from existing.
I’m voting VES!
me and you can then start a family Clampers…ohh go dress shopping, Im organising my stags darling!
You’re the soft fluffy one, you where the bloody dress ! :)
The issue my dear Bluebeard is that Murray rather erroneously thinks he is being misrepresented although reading through his drivel, he engages in a sort of dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin style semantics in a telling attempt to try and denigrate his perceived enemies and manufacture that which is patently not the case. Perhaps the eminent “doctor” should try and put down his Chicken Licken guide to apocalyptic soothsaying and join us in the real world.
Plus plus plus;
Dear Bluebeard is a particularly insidious form of guttersnipe – the type that pats you on the back telling you what a good job you’re doing while standing on your toes in welders boots.
LoL. That settles it so.
+1
woah, hold on a minute… “marriage, as it now is, and historically has been understood, as a union of one man and one woman, would no longer exist.” … is the referendum outlawing marriages between men and women?
yep. it’ll be like living under islamic state, apparently.
He was obviously getting paid by the minute or part there off
A typical Knicker elastic style speech.
This “doc” of God is merely attention seeking, piqued by those who deign to point out the moronic musings of the self-styled Iona “Institute”.