45 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

  1. mic

    yet they’re not worried about a gay female and a gay male marrying?
    or two straight people, female and male, not in a relationship?

    1. Joe the Lion

      you’re missing the point

      these folks are pretty clever at erecting strawmen

      1. Odis

        No Joe – you’re missing the point. This is precisely the sort of lunacy that can occur, when you go rushing willy-nilly into changing cherished institutions!

        1. ReproBertie

          Not only can but must occur. In fact, when the government introduce the surrogacy bill, all unwed women of child bearing age will be forced to act as surrogates for gay men. For many straight women the only escape will be to marry each other and then divorce when/if they want to marry a man.

          1. ReproBertie

            Yes Odis, I was being completely serious.

            But if Iona can spout ridiculous guff as a genueine argument then why can’t I?

  2. My name is Geoff

    Good ol’ broadsheet. Picture of Oscar winners and an Iona institute story as related as Batman and Ends Kenny! You’ve been around long enough now lads to get this sh*t right. FFS!

    1. ReproBertie

      Who dresses you in the morning Geoff? The picture of the Oscar winners is above a post titled “A Limerick A Day” in a section titled “Related Posts” in a post titled “A Limerick A Day”.

      Do we need to get the crayons out and draw a picture?

  3. Jane

    Interesting. Do the Iona Loonstitute have a patented TestURGayMeter that they were hoping to make some money out of if the yes side wins? Saving BS thousands, I’m going to say probably not. Also, I’m only pretending to call them loons. Of course they’re perfectly sane and rational individuals with many thoughts worth engaging with on a variety of issues.

    1. Joe the Lion

      At the risk of sounding like rotide or one of the other mundane trolls on this site, this is a not very sane or rational tack Jane. Sneering at your political opponents won’t persuade anyone.

      I watched Mullen in my view at least from a somewhat detached perspective defeat Coveney (and Claire Byrne, who is an absolute disgrace) quite soundly in the debate last night, other than some obscure nonsensical reference to the ECHR there wasn’t a rational argument used. I believe it was Aristotle who defined the three elements used in the sphere of oratory to be ethos, pathos and logos. As Wiki says:
      “Specifically, Aristotle refers to the effect of ethos and pathos on an audience since a speaker needs to exhibit these modes of persuasion before that audience.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle)

      1. Jane

        Yeah, thanks for the tip, but I think I might continue to decide for myself. I don’t call them names to persuade anyone, I do it to amuse myself.

      2. Joe the Lion

        I know – I’m sorry if I came across as lecturing.

        You’re a smart person and will be better able to persuade folks by appealing to their good nature.

      3. ahjayzis

        I concur.

        I was fuming that for some reason the person representing me was the heterosexual minister for fupping agriculture!

        I have no problem with straight or gay proponents for Yes representing the side on panels, but RTE have completed three out of four of their marriage debates – only ONE featured any gay people on the panel.

        The Late Late debate was more effective than the PT or CBlive because it had real people who are are/will be really affected by the referendum up against people only articulating vague fears. I CANNOT understand why all the debates since are featuring politicians looking for media time arguing for my rights.

        1. General Waste

          That would be down to News & Current Affairs (CB & PT) versus Entertainment (LLS). News will always use the politicians and commentators.

        2. jeremy kyle

          I didn’t see any of the RTE ones, but surely they couldn’t have been worse than the Vincent Browne debate on TV3 last night.

          David Norris, George Hook, Kathy Sinnott and the guy from Fathers and Mothers Matter with the stupid sideburns.

          Candidate for the Guinness world record of “most gobshittery in ever spoken in a single debate”.

  4. stealingthemichael

    I’d only marry my best friend for tax purposes. Surely Iona doesn’t think people go around doing things just for tax purposes?

    1. ahjayzis

      Like registering as a charity despite carrying out no activity of any benefit to society? Heavens no!

    1. MajorThrill

      They might not be a trusted academic source but they show their work and link to as close to the original source as possible which is a lot more than some “reputable” study quoting institutes who shall remain nameless.

  5. TG

    “No Joe – you’re missing the point. This is precisely the sort of lunacy that can occur, when you go rushing willy-nilly into changing cherished institutions!”

    It has already occurred in New Zealand! Go into the Iona website and read the full article.

    1. Joe the Lion

      So what – what’s your point? It’s not any of our business if someone wants to marry their friend if there are no other rights being breached.

      The whole argument of Mullen is a straw man – oh if we let the gays marry the floodgates will open etc.

      Rather than arguing AGAINST such nonsense a better argument would to ARGUE WITH IT e.g.

      So what if the floodgates open anyway?

      This leads the debate into international waters and then there are no arguments for Mullen to make

      For example – please point to the destruction wrought on society by letting gays marry elsewhere etc.

      Eames was waffling on about Massachussets for example – go on Eames tell us what is happening over there that is so bad. It was embarrassing how poorly Byrne engaged with the various speakers. Pathetic in fact.

          1. Joe the Lion

            Haha I think you misunderstood me in the first place as I was referring to the context of Moynes’ limerick. Oh well

  6. Stash

    I’m very worried about my tax situation now having read this:

    “It might be said that ‘sham’ marriages already exist. But consummation is assumed. Two straight male or female friends who wish to marry in order to gain the tax benefits of marriage won’t have to pretend anything given the drastic change to the legal understanding and meaning of marriage on offer.”

    I didn’t realise I was supposed to be sending proof of sexual congress in with my tax returns! Do you know if the accept photos, or do I have to send a video. Oh and is it OK if I blur the faces out?

Comments are closed.