The Iona Institute

georgesstreet · 13-11-2013 8:58pm

Ambersky wrote: »

How do you suggest they deal with the Iona Institutes arguments but not give them any attention or deal with them directly.
How does that work in practice Georgestreet. Are you saying they not make eye contact with them or turn their backs on them or refuse to talk to them or just refuse any offers of going for a drink afterwards. What are you saying, I dont understand the point you are trying to make, it sounds good not to give someone attention but how do the LGBT reps do that, when reps from Iona are the main opponents put in front of them. It just doesnt make any sense.

Sometimes it's easy to deal with arguments without engaging with those making them. In practice, it means ridiculing bad arguments, and even pointing out those making them are a tiny rump, and avoiding actually engaging directly with those making them, or playing their clever games of trying to get us to engage with them directly.

I agree, it's not always completely easy, but to address over their heads those who now seem to be in the majority, and pointing out the arguments they make are bigoted, if they are, and pointing out that their arguments are the arguments of a clutch of sinister virgins in the Vatican who have already betrayed the trust of those in their care, and have little resonance now with the bulk of thinking people.

Sure, i know it's not always easy, but they are skilled at trying to get others to engage with them directly, and then try to control the debate, and we have to remember they are in the minority, and speak not for the Irish people, but for a clutch of sinister virgins in the vatican. We must control the debate, and not play their game and get sidetracked by engaging with their tactics, but instead highlight their bigotry and hatred for what it is. At this point, the majority of Irish people will agree, and by doing that it serves to marginalise them and not give them a seriousness they simply don't deserve.

ewan whose army · 13-11-2013 9:25pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

Sometimes it's easy to deal with arguments without engaging with those making them. In practice, it means ridiculing bad arguments, and even pointing out those making them are a tiny rump, and avoiding actually engaging directly with those making them, or playing their clever games of trying to get us to engage with them directly.

I agree, it's not always completely easy, but to address over their heads those who now seem to be in the majority, and pointing out the arguments they make are bigoted, if they are, and pointing out that their arguments are the arguments of a clutch of sinister virgins in the Vatican who have already betrayed the trust of those in their care, and have little resonance now with the bulk of thinking people.

Sure, i know it's not always easy, but they are skilled at trying to get others to engage with them directly, and then try to control the debate, and we have to remember they are in the minority, and speak not for the Irish people, but for a clutch of sinister virgins in the vatican. We must control the debate, and not play their game and get sidetracked by engaging with their tactics, but instead highlight their bigotry and hatred for what it is. At this point, the majority of Irish people will agree, and by doing that it serves to marginalise them and not give them a seriousness they simply don't deserve.

I agree, I actually prefer to let them show off their nasty side, when people see the idioticy of the underlying concepts of groups like Iona then they loose respect. This is the same that has happened to people like the Christian Voice in the UK, now they just have that scary barrister who creeps lord tebbit

Ambersky · 13-11-2013 9:47pm

georgesstreet said
Sometimes it's easy to deal with arguments without engaging with those making them. In practice, it means ridiculing bad arguments, and even pointing out those making them are a tiny rump, and avoiding actually engaging directly with those making them, or playing their clever games of trying to get us to engage with them directly.

Nope still not getting you Georgestreet. I get that you think they are a tiny minority and that by ridiculing them (sinister virgins) and their arguments (bad) while being confident that if we try to marginalize them by highlighting their bigotry then the majority will see them for who they are and support LGBT people.
I think there is a danger here that we would look like the bigots with this tactic, name calling not to mention over confident arrogance never goes down well. However

That still doesnt address my question of how to deal with them in studio be it radio or television. Again how do the gay and lesbian supporters of same sex marriage avoid engaging with them directly when they are presented as the opposing opinion right there in front of them with the interaction being recorded to help the general public understand the different viewpoints and make up their minds for themselves.
How do you not engage with them directly under such circumstances.

Ambersky · 13-11-2013 10:00pm

ewan whos army said
I agree, I actually prefer to let them show off their nasty side, when people see the idioticy of the underlying concepts of groups like Iona then they loose respect.

The Marriage Equality campaign has done a very good job of presenting themselves as reasonable, articulate and respectable .
They have presented the case for same sex marriage as making sense and as a reasonable step in achieving a more just and equal society.
They have usually presented their arguments with good grace, appearing reasonable with coherent counter arguments to every argument put against them.
Because of this opponents to same sex marriage are having a more difficult time of presenting lesbians and gays as any danger to society and are appearing to be unreasonable and outdated.
It would be doing the anti gay marriage side a favour in my opinion and could well sway public opinion to now show "nastyness" towards them.
It helps to be familiar with the arguments of your opponent and to be well prepared. Predictability isnt always a good thing.
It is not your job to show that you believe your opponent to be an idiot, you allow them to do that for themselves and for the public to then decide who they would like to support.

jenlet · 13-11-2013 11:53pm

Lou.m wrote: »

.

David Quinn is the face .Patricia Casey, a psychiatrist. Breda O’Brien, a teacher.James Sheehan, a doctor, and co-owner of several hugely-profitable private clinics. Vincent Twomey, a priest.

http://www.legatus.org/qualifications

http://bocktherobber.com/2013/06/what-exactly-is-the-iona-institute/

breda o'brien isnt actually a member, when she taught me she said she was asked to be a patron (non funding type) from what i could gather or something like that. she is quite religious but doesnt really care about personal opinions in the sense she never once tried to influence us in class and held quite neutral debates.

Ambersky · 14-11-2013 3:13am

The Iona Institutes own website has a page titled Personnel and Patrons.
Breda O'Brien is one of the five patrons.

Breda O'Brien: Breda O'Brien is a teacher and a columnist with The Irish Times. She is best known for her commentary on religious and social affairs.

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/personnel_patrons.php

A Patron seems to be an important person in an organisation.
Saying a patron is not a member seems to be splitting hairs, what is the difference. A patron seems more important to an organisation than an ordinary member.
While looking up the role of a patron it seems there are different kinds of patrons depending on the kind of organisation. They dont have to provide funds they can provide other supports instead. It is not a neutral position.
This one was the best fit I could find to describe the role of a parton in an organisation similar to the Iona Institute, as it gives information on governance and management committees for community groups and small voluntary organisations"

A patron is someone who agrees to lend their name to your organisation as a way of supporting you.
A Patron can help you get noticed, add prestige or lend credibility to your cause. Ideally all of the positive attributes of your patron will rub off on your organisation
Patrons fall into a number of categories and each can help you in a particular way. A celebrity can help you raise your public profile by getting you publicity.

http://www.governancepages.org.uk/faq-2/faq-25-32-2/30-patrons/

georgesstreet · 14-11-2013 8:54am

Ambersky wrote: »

That still doesnt address my question of how to deal with them in studio be it radio or television.

You do seem determined alright. The usual formula on tv and radio is to agree to be interviewed separately, so they are interviewed first without input or interruption from you, and then you are interviewed on the same basis. It is a formula which is often used successfully.

I get the feeling here that no matter what I suggest, you are going to find fault with it and simply disagree, as you seem to want to engage and connect with people like the Iona institute. My view is that engaging directly with those sorts of people gives them the oxygen of publicity and gives them a degree of seriousness and respect which they would otherwise not have.

So lets agree to disagree and move on, and you engage and connect with them and I will not.

Annasopra · 14-11-2013 9:52am

jenlet wrote: »

breda o'brien isnt actually a member, when she taught me she said she was asked to be a patron (non funding type) from what i could gather or something like that. she is quite religious but doesnt really care about personal opinions in the sense she never once tried to influence us in class and held quite neutral debates.

Patron or member? same difference

jenlet · 14-11-2013 12:28pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Patron or member? same difference

sorry that came out wrong apologies

Annasopra · 14-11-2013 2:39pm

jenlet wrote: »

sorry that came out wrong apologies

No need to apologise - I was pointing out that she is linked to the organisation and how doesnt really matter

mr.anonymous · 14-11-2013 3:16pm

Iona will definitely have its voice heard when the media debates on Marriage Equality begin in time for the referendum. The media will have to be seen to give both sides of the debate equal time to make their points.

With this debate though, I would say, without doubt, the No side are already the minority. The TV debates will make it look more like a 50/50 for the Yes/No sides. And further to Ambersky's point, this will probably close the gap between for and against.

There was an episode of Tonight with Vincent Browne that debated the issue on Thurs 31st October. It's still available on 3player. Averil Power (Fianna Fáil senator) was on the Constitutional Convention and said statements made by two people raised by lesbian parents changed the opinion of some Convention members.

David Quinn of Iona also made a submission to the Constitutional Convention, claiming that children who grow up with same sex parents have a worse outcome than those with opposite sex parents. Averil Power said that the author of the research Quinn quoted wrote to the Convention and said his submission was false and that there was no proof to support his claim.

I must say I disagree with the statement that engaging with Iona will give them the "oxygen of publicity". The media will give them this publicity. They have to. Also, how else do you defeat someone's argument without listening to what they're saying and addressing their points? We have to engage with Iona.

What I'm taking from georgesstreet's point about not engaging with Iona is that their argument is not equal to the argument of GLEN and others on the Yes side. If that is what is meant, I agree. Creationism and Evolution are opposite sides of an argument. But certainly not equal sides of an argument. You can prove evolution. You can not prove the world is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days. It wasn't!

I don't really believe that the No side in this debate are actually ok with civil partnerships. To them, homosexuality is a sin. It's a bad "choice". It must be true because it says so in the Bible. You know, the book with the Virgin birth and the talking snake!

On this side of the Atlantic, we have to be civilised when debating issues like this. Some in the US Congress or Senate might use lovely phrases like "Family Values" or "Protecting Marriage". The same way putting six million Jews in a gas chamber is "ethnic cleansing". I may a bit over the top on that one, but I find nothing more frustrating. David Quinn and others might stand under the No banner, but they really want to stand under this:

There will always be people that need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in to the 21st century. I have some faith and optimism in this country. When the people see that gay people and gay couples are people and couples first, and gay second, this will change their view on the gap between their rights and the rights of their peers.

This referendum will pass. I think the Yes side are very capable of tackling the non-issues raised by the No side. Iona is a voice of a minority, a loud voice too, but not one that represents the views of many.

georgesstreet · 14-11-2013 4:30pm

mr.anonymous wrote: »

I don't really believe that the No side in this debate are actually ok with civil partnerships. To them, homosexuality is a sin. It's a bad "choice". It must be true because it says so in the Bible. You know, the book with the Virgin birth and the talking snake!

On this side of the Atlantic, we have to be civilised when debating issues like this. Some in the US Congress or Senate might use lovely phrases like "Family Values" or "Protecting Marriage". The same way putting six million Jews in a gas chamber is "ethnic cleansing". I may a bit over the top on that one, but I find nothing more frustrating. David Quinn and others might stand under the No banner, but they really want to stand under this:

It is really irrelevant what anyone thinks about civil partnerships as we have the right to civil partnerships.

I am not for intolerance, and the intolerance which oozes from your post makes me uncomfortable. The intolerance you show for the views of others in your post reminds me of the intolerance shown to gay people in the past. Some gay people fought for human rights and fought intolerance from others over many years. I didn't fight to oppose the intolerance of others just to now allow other gay people to show their intolerance for those whose views they oppose.

We should show tolerance for those whose views we don not share, and if you want to "fight" the likes of the Iona people, then tackle them and fight them. But dont be surprised if your intolerance for them comes back to bite you and bite the cause you purport to support.

Ash885 · 14-11-2013 10:11pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

We should show tolerance for those whose views we don not share, and if you want to "fight" the likes of the Iona people, then tackle them and fight them. But dont be surprised if your intolerance for them comes back to bite you and bite the cause you purport to support.

I'm sorry but civil rights didn't just happen for minorities due to some sort of epiphany from the larger majority. I can understand your views but in all honesty it is completely unfeasible to achieve anything by showing tolerance to blatant homophobia.

At the end of the day, I think Iona's own incompetence and ignorance will be their own undoing. How do we show this? By showing people the alternative side of the debate. If they're met unchallanged people have very little to weigh up.

Annasopra · 14-11-2013 10:43pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

It is really irrelevant what anyone thinks about civil partnerships as we have the right to civil partnerships.

I am not for intolerance, and the intolerance which oozes from your post makes me uncomfortable. The intolerance you show for the views of others in your post reminds me of the intolerance shown to gay people in the past. Some gay people fought for human rights and fought intolerance from others over many years. I didn't fight to oppose the intolerance of others just to now allow other gay people to show their intolerance for those whose views they oppose.

We should show tolerance for those whose views we don not share, and if you want to "fight" the likes of the Iona people, then tackle them and fight them. But dont be surprised if your intolerance for them comes back to bite you and bite the cause you purport to support.

This is just trolling because honestly I have seen no tolerance at all from you towards those who disagree with you on this forum. Please desist from trolling this forum.

georgesstreet · 15-11-2013 11:39am

Ash885 wrote: »

I'm sorry but civil rights didn't just happen for minorities due to some sort of epiphany from the larger majority. I can understand your views but in all honesty it is completely unfeasible to achieve anything by showing tolerance to blatant homophobia.

At the end of the day, I think Iona's own incompetence and ignorance will be their own undoing. How do we show this? By showing people the alternative side of the debate. If they're met unchallanged people have very little to weigh up.

Indeed, I fought for human rights for gay people for many years and am a little proud of what has been achieved.

Homophobia as a word covers a lot, but where we perhaps differ is that while I once asked for tolerance from others who wanted to censor me because they didn't like my views, I largely won and now the majority of society agrees with my views.

I am not now going to reverse the role and demand censorship of others whose views I may disagree with. It's understandable that a diminishing minority are homophobic, but they pose no real threat any more and are the dying cinders of a different country.

Challenge their views? Absolutely, and robustly.

For me, I don't need to give them an importance they no longer have by taking them too seriously, though, and think the time is here to not only challenge their views robustly, but also to laugh at them and show how out of kilter their bitter and nasty views are, and how hardly anyone takes them seriously any more. I can do that without engaging with them directly and appearing to take them seriously.

Annasopra · 15-11-2013 12:13pm

This topic is about the Iona institute - please desist from taking it completely off topic

ewan whose army · 15-11-2013 12:21pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

Indeed, I fought for human rights for gay people for many years and am a little proud of what has been achieved.

Homophobia as a word covers a lot, but where we perhaps differ is that while I once asked for tolerance from others who wanted to censor me because they didn't like my views, I largely won and now the majority of society agrees with my views.

I am not now going to reverse the role and demand censorship of others whose views I may disagree with. It's understandable that a diminishing minority are homophobic, but they pose no real threat any more and are the dying cinders of a different country.

Challenge their views? Absolutely, and robustly.

For me, I don't need to give them an importance they no longer have by taking them too seriously, though, and think the time is here to not only challenge their views robustly, but also to laugh at them and show how out of kilter their bitter and nasty views are, and how hardly anyone takes them seriously any more. I can do that without engaging with them directly and appearing to take them seriously.

Groups like Iona don't respond to fair and reasoned criticism. I had a spat with a US fundie on Yahoo, I gave him links to Peer Reviewed research which proves that LGBT people make good parents, that HIV is as common in heterosexual people in Europe etc. but he just said "Its all lies and propaganda" and repeated the gunk from the Bible. Back home in England there was this group called "Core Issues Trust" which is run by this scary looking fundie barrister, she actually tried to make Stonewall fund an anti-gay bus advert for a "level playing field" there is no reasoning with them. Also considering the opposite of "Some people are gay, Get over it" would be "Some people are Straight, Get over it" not "Some people are ex-gay get over it'

georgesstreet · 15-11-2013 12:28pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Groups like Iona don't respond to fair and reasoned criticism. '

I couldn't agree more which is why I think it's pointless arguing with them, and no matter how reasoned and logical you are, you can't ever win. I prefer instead to ridicule them and expose them as outlined in my previous post.

ewan whose army · 15-11-2013 12:31pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I couldn't agree more which is why I think it's pointless arguing with them, and no matter how reasoned and logical you are, you can't ever win. I prefer instead to ridicule them and expose them as outlined in my previous post.

Downright ridiculing them doesn't work, it just makes us look like the pink heathens they want to characterise us as.

I still have respect for moderate Catholics, I was Catholically educated in England, when I was a gay teen in the closet I actually came out to one of the teachers (a priest) who asked what was wrong with me (I was bullied and looked really distraught) , he actually got me the details of a local LGBT teen support group and said that "not all of us agree with the vatican's stance on it, there is nothing to be upset over"

georgesstreet · 15-11-2013 12:41pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Downright ridiculing them doesn't work, it just makes us look like the pink heathens they want to characterise us as.

I disagree and have seem extreme views silenced by the power of others laughing at those exposing the views. Lots of people despise their extreme nasty views, and many more of them are str8 than are gay. "We" who dont like their views are not exclusively gay, so for them to characterise those who laugh at their views as "pink heathens" would, again, merely expose them as bigots.

[QUOTE=ewan
I still have respect for moderate Catholics, I was Catholically educated in England, when I was a gay teen in the closet I actually came out to one of the teachers (a priest) who asked what was wrong with me (I was bullied and looked really distraught) , he actually got me the details of a local LGBT teen support group and said that "not all of us agree with the vatican's stance on it, there is nothing to be upset over"[/QUOTE]

Here we disagree as I could not respect any religion which has such a nasty history, Thats not to say I dont respect many individual and pious members of many religions, but not the religion itself.

Indeed, that fact that the Iona Institute claims as its authority the vatican is more cause to dislike their bigotry.

Annasopra · 15-11-2013 12:51pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I couldn't agree more which is why I think it's pointless arguing with them, and no matter how reasoned and logical you are, you can't ever win. I prefer instead to ridicule them and expose them as outlined in my previous post.

You've made that point very clear. It appears that you are now soapboxing on this issue. That is a breach of the charter. Please desist from further soapboxing and derailing of this thread

ewan whose army · 15-11-2013 12:51pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I disagree and have seem extreme views silenced by the power of others laughing at those exposing the views. Lots of people despise their extreme nasty views, and many more of them are str8 than are gay. "We" who dont like their views are not exclusively gay, so for them to characterise those who laugh at their views as "pink heathens" would, again, merely expose them as bigots.

Here we disagree as I could not respect any religion which has such a nasty history, Thats not to say I dont respect many individual and pious members of many religions, but not the religion itself.

Indeed, that fact that the Iona Institute claims as its authority the vatican is more cause to dislike their bigotry.

I meant Catholics themselves, the moderate kind are fine. I don't like the Vatican at all though, or any of the types who become these hateful Cardinals (case in point Ketih O'brien)

georgesstreet · 23-11-2013 2:34pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

I meant Catholics themselves, the moderate kind are fine. I don't like the Vatican at all though, or any of the types who become these hateful Cardinals (case in point Ketih O'brien)

I dont know the cardinal you name, and what I am thankful for is the influence of a hateful organisation, who has spat its vile hatred at so many over the years ( not just homosexuals), is losing influence, and has lost much influence, in recent years.

colossus-x · 26-11-2013 3:22am

I really hope by the time the referendum is announced that whomever in the gay community will be called upon to argue the case for gay marriage will have done a bit of swatting up, namely on the philosophical augments that theists cling to ie the existence of God and thus his laws etc. I have heard David Quinn debate on radio a couple of times firstly with TD Ciara Quinn ( accidentally, which drew me to this thread as I'd never heard of her or him ) and today an older debate I listened to online today on The Turbidity Show against the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins that I listened to today online.

David Quinn trounced both Quinn and Dawkins. Especially Ciara ( no disrespect to Ciara at all ). Why? Because he was prepared for whichever other argument would be presented, arguments that have been made time and time again. He was not challenged with a question he has never been challenged with before. Ciara's only reply to Quinn was " Well I still think that .....! " .... without making much of a rebuttal. It was kinda embarrassing. She has no personal experience of being a gay and moreover a gay with a child. I think someone who was there in that experience should be challenging him.

My personal critique of Mr David Quinn is that he is a scavenger. He is a scavenger of scientific and especially philosophical ideas. For example in his debate with Dawkins on Turbidity he reduced the argument against god to the existence of "raw matter" and how else would it come about were it not for God who created it. Does anyone think that Quinn had the foggiest idea what the smallest particles known to man are. Hardly. Does David Quinn realize that scientists still don't understand the workings of the basic atom. More importantly does Quinn think about these questions day to day ? Hardly again.

Mr Quinn is certainly not a scientist ( and doesn't' have the first clue about physics or biology etc ) and more so - not a bona fida philosopher. He is a book worm and gets his ideas from them. No creative thinking from him at all.

What struck me listening to him from the 2 debates I mentioned was where his tone went from friendly at first to outright vicious when he took out his sword with killer statistical and philosophical arguments .

On the statistical points he rubbishes every survey on the pro side for children living with gay parents ( where it makes no difference as far as I can see ) , and then quotes surveys where the results of children living with gay parents are the exact opposite. He states that children of gay parents fare worse off, don't do well at college, etc. I think this kind of argument is his most weak point. I'm not gonna argue any of this points now but I'm happy too later.

Furthermore he cleverly bends the referendum debate from *should we allow homosexual couples to be married* to * are really saying as a society that we deliberately take away the right of child to have a mother and and a farther* . That's just plain wrong, as we know 2 60 year old's are welcome to get married in the catholic church. That's noting to do with a child.

Now most readers of this thread will roll there eyes up to Quins's arguments but I ask who his going to debate him when the referendum comes up. I haven't heard on Irish public TV or Radio where anyone is equipped to challenge him and I feel if there isn't anyone there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of gay marriage being passed at this time. I did watch a debate on Prime Time a while back where I saw a spokesman for gay marriage make personal insults at one of the detractor on the panel. It looked very bad Not to impune the guy he was doing his best and he was passionate obviously but this is really not the way to make an argument and I really do feel that we must challenge Quinn on the same arguments that he argues on as well. That is the his Philosophical creationist arguments and the laws that he feels derive from that belief. This is still catholic Ireland after all and I don't think we have been completely unshackled from that era quite yet.

Quinn is a vicious debater. He is ready for any most arguments and has his answers ready in his pocket. In fact he has already anticipated them so it's dead easy for him to answer. Do we on the pro-gay-marriage side with all you passion for it have some journalists or academic philosopher ready to counteract him? Doesn't look like it so far.

Edit: Do I think @georgesstreet is wrong. It couldn't be more wrong.

georgesstreet · 26-11-2013 11:49am

colossus-x wrote: »

I really hope by the time the referendum is announced that whomever in the gay community will be called upon to argue the case for gay marriage will have done a bit of swatting up, namely on the philosophical augments that theists cling to ie the existence of God and thus his laws etc. I have heard David Quinn debate on radio a couple of times firstly with TD Ciara Quinn ( accidentally, which drew me to this thread as I'd never heard of her or him ) and today an older debate I listened to online today on The Turbidity Show against the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins that I listened to today online.

David Quinn trounced both Quinn and Dawkins. Especially Ciara ( no disrespect to Ciara at all ). Why? Because he was prepared for whichever other argument would be presented, arguments that have been made time and time again. He was not challenged with a question he has never been challenged with before. Ciara's only reply to Quinn was " Well I still think that .....! " .... without making much of a rebuttal. It was kinda embarrassing. She has no personal experience of being a gay and moreover a gay with a child. I think someone who was there in that experience should be challenging him.

My personal critique of Mr David Quinn is that he is a scavenger. He is a scavenger of scientific and especially philosophical ideas. For example in his debate with Dawkins on Turbidity he reduced the argument against god to the existence of "raw matter" and how else would it come about were it not for God who created it. Does anyone think that Quinn had the foggiest idea what the smallest particles known to man are. Hardly. Does David Quinn realize that scientists still don't understand the workings of the basic atom. More importantly does Quinn think about these questions day to day ? Hardly again.

Mr Quinn is certainly not a scientist ( and doesn't' have the first clue about physics or biology etc ) and more so - not a bona fida philosopher. He is a book worm and gets his ideas from them. No creative thinking from him at all.

What struck me listening to him from the 2 debates I mentioned was where his tone went from friendly at first to outright vicious when he took out his sword with killer statistical and philosophical arguments .

On the statistical points he rubbishes every survey on the pro side for children living with gay parents ( where it makes no difference as far as I can see ) , and then quotes surveys where the results of children living with gay parents are the exact opposite. He states that children of gay parents fare worse off, don't do well at college, etc. I think this kind of argument is his most weak point. I'm not gonna argue any of this points now but I'm happy too later.

Furthermore he cleverly bends the referendum debate from *should we allow homosexual couples to be married* to * are really saying as a society that we deliberately take away the right of child to have a mother and and a farther* . That's just plain wrong, as we know 2 60 year old's are welcome to get married in the catholic church. That's noting to do with a child.

Now most readers of this thread will roll there eyes up to Quins's arguments but I ask who his going to debate him when the referendum comes up. I haven't heard on Irish public TV or Radio where anyone is equipped to challenge him and I feel if there isn't anyone there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of gay marriage being passed at this time. I did watch a debate on Prime Time a while back where I saw a spokesman for gay marriage make personal insults at one of the detractor on the panel. It looked very bad Not to impune the guy he was doing his best and he was passionate obviously but this is really not the way to make an argument and I really do feel that we must challenge Quinn on the same arguments that he argues on as well. That is the his Philosophical creationist arguments and the laws that he feels derive from that belief. This is still catholic Ireland after all and I don't think we have been completely unshackled from that era quite yet.

Quinn is a vicious debater. He is ready for any most arguments and has his answers ready in his pocket. In fact he has already anticipated them so it's dead easy for him to answer. Do we on the pro-gay-marriage side with all you passion for it have some journalists or academic philosopher ready to counteract him? Doesn't look like it so far.

Edit: Do I think @georgesstreet is wrong. It couldn't be more wrong.

My experience is that the IONA guys are trying to push water up a hill, as most I meet in ireland are really relaxed about the whole issue. Many have family members who are gay, and/or friends who are gay, and so their focus is no longer tainted by the fear of the churches, but by compassion for their friends and family. Many people no longer care about the church's position, and their focus in on trying to help those they know who are gay to attain equal rights.

So you debate IONA and we will ridicule them. Thankfully we can do both.

ewan whose army · 26-11-2013 2:02pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

My experience is that the IONA guys are trying to push water up a hill, as most I meet in ireland are really relaxed about the whole issue. Many have family members who are gay, and/or friends who are gay, and so their focus is no longer tainted by the fear of the churches, but by compassion for their friends and family. Many people no longer care about the church's position, and their focus in on trying to help those they know who are gay to attain equal rights.

So you debate IONA and we will ridicule them. Thankfully we can do both.

Ireland is very much for LGBTQ+ rights, the only real exception is Northern Ireland

Annasopra · 26-11-2013 2:15pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Ireland is very much for LGBTQ+ rights, the only real exception is Northern Ireland

I agree that Ireland is mostly in favour of lgb rights. I'm not so sure of "TQ+" at all and I think it's far too early to get into assumptions based on poll results just yet.

Ireland has radically changed since the 1980 and 1990s on social and liberal issues but we shouldn't forget our history either as the voices of theocratic morality are still somewhat residual.

The 2015 marriage equality referendum will probably be nasty

I half expect a campaign like this

ewan whose army · 26-11-2013 2:21pm

mango salsa wrote: »

I agree that Ireland is mostly in favour of lgb rights. I'm not so sure of "TQ+" at all and I think it's far too early to get into assumptions based on poll results just yet.

Ireland has radically changed since the 1980 and 1990s on social and liberal issues but we shouldn't forget our history either as the voices of theocratic morality are still somewhat residual.

The 2015 marriage equality referendum will probably be nasty

I half expect a campaign like this

Why is it always old men in these things..... It was the same with the Abortion rally a while back when I got trapped on the wrong side of O'Connell it was always men in their 70s and 80s, with caps. I rarely saw a women who abortion legislation actually affects.

georgesstreet · 26-11-2013 7:36pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Why is it always old men in these things..... It was the same with the Abortion rally a while back when I got trapped on the wrong side of O'Connell it was always men in their 70s and 80s, with caps. I rarely saw a women who abortion legislation actually affects.

That gets to the nub of the point, and the younger demographics have little truck with those old and ingrained attitudes. Many older people are also for gay marriage and divorce, and its only a proportion of those older demographics who cling to their old and outdated views.

I particularly liked the picture of the nun in one picture, a once familiar sight on our streets no longer visible in 2013. Its quite possible that if nuns were seen parading like that in the marriage referendum today, they would remind many of their deeply unchristian history, in places like goldenbridge, and remind some to vote for gay marriage.

Annasopra · 26-11-2013 7:39pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Why is it always old men in these things..... It was the same with the Abortion rally a while back when I got trapped on the wrong side of O'Connell it was always men in their 70s and 80s, with caps. I rarely saw a women who abortion legislation actually affects.

Have you not seen any of the anti abortion rallies in the last few years where young people and women are to the forefront?

ewan whose army · 26-11-2013 9:18pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Have you not seen any of the anti abortion rallies in the last few years where young people and women are to the forefront?

Nope, maybe I just saw the tail end.

Ambersky · 26-11-2013 11:29pm

Members of the Iona Institute on now debating LGBT adoption on Prime Time now
Have a look and you can see for yourself how the arguments line up and how the debate is going.
You can also see it on the RTE website. These issues and arguments will be coming up again in the marriage equality debate.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/search/?q=prime%20time

georgesstreet · 27-11-2013 9:23am

Ambersky wrote: »

Members of the Iona Institute on now debating LGBT adoption on Prime Time now
Have a look and you can see for yourself how the arguments line up and how the debate is going.
You can also see it on the RTE website. These issues and arguments will be coming up again in the marriage equality debate.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/search/?q=prime%20time

Speaking for myself (that’s silly, as I can't speak for anyone else!) I have no wish to see them and, thankfully, don't have a tv on which to watch them.

There is nothing so powerful as an opinion whose time has come, said Victor Hugo, and no matter what these people and those like them invent as an argument against others marrying, it seems that for the Irish people now consider that everyone should have the right to marry.

My understanding is that adoption will then have the same rules for everyone who is married.

My prediction is that the ideas of these small unrepresentative groups will be seen, in a few short years, in much the same light as we now view the disgusting and hateful utterances of many churchmen and women, and wonder how anyone could ever have taken them seriously.

Having a look at their website (I love the way the euphemistic way they avoid saying “STOP ANYONE OF WHOM WE DON'T PERSONALLY APPROVE FROM GETTING MARRIED” by instead saying “the case for man and woman marriage”, and can’t believe too many people fall for this sort of intolerance position towards others.

Ireland is a changed country, and most have left that sort of hatred behind. Nowadays these people are so marginalised and unrepresentative they have to hide their hatred behind euphemisms, which is a marvellous advance on the times when they, and their ilk, could and did spout their hatred more openly. Isn’t that a marvellous advance!

Annasopra · 27-11-2013 10:00am

Ambersky wrote: »

Members of the Iona Institute on now debating LGBT adoption on Prime Time now
Have a look and you can see for yourself how the arguments line up and how the debate is going.
You can also see it on the RTE website. These issues and arguments will be coming up again in the marriage equality debate.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/search/?q=prime%20time

Thanks Ambersky I think it is really important that we can clearly see what their arguments are. If social change is going to happen then their arguments need to be adressed.

Ambersky · 27-11-2013 10:18pm

The LGBT people on there from GLEN and Marriage Equality did really well. They did really well in holding their cool and presenting their issues and arguments in a dignified way.
An organisation called Preserve Marriage had a gay man on as one of their reps, it may be worth your while listening to the arguments against allowing LGBT couples to adopt from a gay mans perspective.
We are going to be hearing a lot of these arguments put to us before the next referendum and watching this could help prepare you for the arguments you will be up against.
As previous campaigns have shown it isn't a good idea to take anything for granted. The issues raised in this program will also be used in discussing LGBT marriage.

The presentation on changes to adoption and the debate itself begins at 19.40.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10227196/

L1011 · 28-11-2013 7:32pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Have you not seen any of the anti abortion rallies in the last few years where young people and women are to the forefront?

Usually stage managed so the twenty women are at the front and the 800 flatcaps trudge behind. US fundamentalists are training (and funding) them well.

mdn · 30-11-2013 2:22pm

Non psychology PhD students or graduates will henceforth feel much more at ease when making arguments in favour of same-sex marriage and/or parenting now that 'The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values'.

Wonderful stuff, one imagines, for a psychology forum but just a teency weency bit technical for a discussion on Quinn and Iona etc.

Annasopra · 30-11-2013 5:14pm

mdn wrote: »

Non psychology PhD students or graduates will henceforth feel much more at ease when making arguments in favour of same-sex marriage and/or parenting now that 'The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values'. Wonderful stuff, one imagines, for a psychology forum but just a teency weency bit technical for a discussion on Quinn and Iona etc.

I don't understand what your point is

mdn · 03-12-2013 10:41am

If you read back through the discussion you would gain an understanding of my point. Indeed, you, in an earlier post, corrected someone who had gone off-topic in relation to the Iona Institute. My post was in response to 'ewan whose army' who used a detailed academic explanation of psychological research methods which included the sentence ''The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values'. Any normal person would have to agree that this was more in the realm of academia and not at all related to the substantive issue of the Iona Institute. I can make a reasonable guess that very few people who follow such an interesting topic are concerned with explanations of 't-tests and 'p' values'.

Ten of Swords · 03-12-2013 1:49pm

Rather than picking Ewan's post apart why does one not simply read the study oneself and formulate ones own opinion?

There is plenty of analysis and commentary about this study online, from academic and non-academic sectors, as it was quite controversial, and widely debated, when it was published.

ewan whose army · 03-12-2013 2:10pm

mdn wrote: »

Non psychology PhD students or graduates will henceforth feel much more at ease when making arguments in favour of same-sex marriage and/or parenting now that 'The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values'. Wonderful stuff, one imagines, for a psychology forum but just a teency weency bit technical for a discussion on Quinn and Iona etc.

Basically there is not a very stron collation, the P value relates to the probability of the data being coincidental.

The p values in this suggest that the study isn't really very good at saying what groups like Iona are saying. In other words is nonsense that only got published because Renegus knew the peer reviewer personally.

ewan whose army · 03-12-2013 2:12pm

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't understand what your point is

Sorry I got carried away with the actual journal article. I was just pointing out how flakey the original research is. Groups like Iona have poor concept of science

georgesstreet · 03-12-2013 2:58pm

ewan whose army wrote: »

Sorry I got carried away with the actual journal article. I was just pointing out how flakey the original research is. Groups like Iona have poor concept of science

They represent the RC church, and both twist science and use bogus science for their own ends. When the RC church could get away with it it tortured and burnt and brutally murdered those with who dared to disagree with them.

It's simply not possible to have a logical discussion with anyone whose position is that "we are right because god says so".

Daith · 03-12-2013 4:39pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

It's simply not possible to have a logical discussion with anyone whose position is that "we are right because god says so".

They never say that. Their actual argument is that a child should be raised by it's biological mother and father. Regardless of how many studies you want to use, alot of people do believe that is the best for a child.

If the new legislation around adoption for LGBT couples comes in then alot of Iona's arguments with same sex marriage will be irrelevant.

georgesstreet · 04-12-2013 8:55am

Daith wrote: »

They never say that. Their actual argument is that a child should be raised by it's biological mother and father. Regardless of how many studies you want to use, alot of people do believe that is the best for a child.

If the new legislation around adoption for LGBT couples comes in then alot of Iona's arguments with same sex marriage will be irrelevant.

If it is your view that the IONA institute's views do not stem from their religious beliefs, then I gently suggest you may not be entirely right.

Their arguments are their own and, in the example you give, what they are saying is not that the biological mother and father are usually the best people to bring up a child (who could disagree with that). What they are really saying is that homosexual people should be prevented as much as possible from bringing up children.

Their hateful views are disguised to sound reasonable (such as in the example you have just given).

Hopefully most of us can see them for what they are, disappointed people who want as much as possible of their religion, which poisoned this country for so long, to remain poisoning the country. Thankfully they seem to have less and less resonance and their views are more and more seen for the hatred they purvey.

Ambersky · 04-12-2013 3:18pm

Daith I think you are right some of the most entrenched prejudice takes the form of concern over children being educated, influenced, or raised by gay people.
This concern is a major question is some peoples thinking on gay marriage and so if adoption were allowed by gay couples anyway it would make less sense to many to object to gay marriage.
The Ionas website says this

A key moment came when ( in the Prime Time Dabate) Dr Murray directly challenged Grainne Healy of Marriage Equality to say whether she believes having a mother and a father matters from the child’s point of view.

When pressed by presenter David McCullagh on the question, the answer came through loud and clear: “Well not in terms of the child's developmental milestones, no it does not matter.”

So there it is. This is what the entire debate on marriage and the family really hinges on. Do we as a society believe having a mother and a father matters from the point of view of children? Those who want to redefine marriage and parenthood believe the answer is No and want us to believe likewise.

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3325

I think this issue of children needing a mother and a father is not an easy one to argue or dismiss when many people basically feel it is right. It would be foolish in my opinion to underestimate the feelings around this issue.
Be prepared to answer some of the following in your own head and to others if asked. These came up in the Prime Time Debate and they will come up again and again.

Do you think that a child is better off with both mother and father?

So are you saying fathers don't matter or mothers don't matter?

Are you saying a father/mother has no special role in the raising of a child?

So are you saying there are no differences between the genders?

If you think there are differences between the genders then why do you think one of them can be done without?

People who dont have adequate income or who are beyond a certain age cant adopt children but you dont hear them saying they are discriminated against. It just that other people can meet an available childs needs better. Why should gay couples be crying discrimination when its just that there are others who can provide a balance of both genders for a child. Why should a child miss out on this opportunity just to be PC about things?

Daith · 04-12-2013 4:38pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

If it is your view that the IONA institute's views do not stem from their religious beliefs, then I gently suggest you may not be entirely right.

No, I agree they do. However they would never publicly state it. They use the what's best for the child argument. Attacking them for their religious beliefs ain't going to work.

Daith · 04-12-2013 4:45pm

Ambersky wrote: »

Daith I think you are right some of the most entrenched prejudice takes the form of concern over children being educated, influenced, or raised by gay people.
This concern is a major question is some peoples thinking on gay marriage and so if adoption were allowed by gay couples anyway it would make less sense to many to object to gay marriage.
The Ionas website says this

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3325

I think this issue of children needing a mother and a father is not an easy one to argue or dismiss when many people basically feel it is right. It would be foolish in my opinion to underestimate the feelings around this issue.
Be prepared to answer some of the following in your own head and to others if asked. These came up in the Prime Time Debate and they will come up again and again.

Do you think that a child is better off with both mother and father?

So are you saying fathers don't matter or mothers don't matter?

Are you saying a father/mother has no special role in the raising of a child?

So are you saying there are no differences between the genders?

If you think there are differences between the genders then why do you think one of them can be done without?

People who dont have adequate income or who are beyond a certain age cant adopt children but you dont hear them saying they are discriminated against. It just that other people can meet an available childs needs better. Why should gay couples be crying discrimination when its just that there are others who can provide a balance of both genders for a child. Why should a child miss out on this opportunity just to be PC about things?

Spot on. However alot of those questions would become irrelevant if the legislation passes. It's a really smart idea by the Government to separate the two issues by well over a year.

I suspect that IONA will shift to a "marriage is between a man and woman and the state should promote that" idea. They'll argue that gay people now have full rights and thus don't need marriage.

georgesstreet · 04-12-2013 8:41pm

Daith wrote: »

No, I agree they do. However they would never publicly state it. They use the what's best for the child argument. Attacking them for their religious beliefs ain't going to work.

I would never attack anyone for their religious beliefs, whether it worked or not. It's important not to just regurgitate what they say, which in the example given sounds reasonable. It's what their subtext is which is nasty and should be exposed.

Ambersky · 04-12-2013 10:28pm

Daith what is the process for the new legislation. Does the issue need to be debated publicly and will public opinion have any influence on the final decision?

The Iona Institute

Comments