Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Iona Institute
Options
Comments
-
Vivisectus wrote: »And yet, Iona references the study here:
Children do better in traditional families than in same-sex families, study says
The Iona Institute are a pressure group with an agenda. Their agenda is a christian agenda which means they are anti gay. Why anyone gay wants to bother with giving them the oxygen of publicity seems a mystery, and only succeeds in giving them more credibility than they either deserve or would otherwise get.
Why does anyone care what this small unrepresentative group thinks about anything?0 -
Dunno - because I am in favor of equal rights for gay people? Because they keep ending up on TV and radio shows as representatives of the anti-gay rights viewpoints?
Also because I love to argue, and because they use the kind of lame rationalizations that really annoy me.0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »Dunno - because I am in favor of equal rights for gay people? Because they keep ending up on TV and radio shows as representatives of the anti-gay rights viewpoints?
Also because I love to argue, and because they use the kind of lame rationalizations that really annoy me.
The really great thing is that for all their lobbying, we now have a really good set of human rights for everyone whether they be gay or not, and shortly we will have a referendum on marriage for same sex couples. It seems the vast majority are in favour of the same human rights for all, gay or non gay.
These people, the IONA self publicists, are are like pebbles in a tin bucket, making lost of noise but ultimately irrelevant to the vast majority. To be gay in ireland is now as normal as fish and chips, so why give the IONA guys the oxygen of publicity for their narrow minded views which are outdated, and which are pretty much irrelevant, and dignigying their views by talking about them give them an importance they just don't have.0 -
georgesstreet wrote: »
Why does anyone care what this small unrepresentative group thinks about anything?
Because they are given regular largescale media access through Newspapers and Televsion and Radio and their views need to be challenged on these mediums.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
We need to pay attention and not get too secure in the idea that there is majority support at this stage for same sex marriage. Do not underestimate the power of conservative Ireland to scare monger and confuse the issue.
For example this is what the referendum on the rights of the child looked like in the beginning
http://http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/large-majority-supports-referendum-on-childrens-rights-287822.html04/12/2006
More than two thirds of voters support the Taoiseach's plan to hold a referendum to specifically recognise the rights of children, according to the latest opinion poll on the matter.
Sixty-eight per cent of respondents to The Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll say they would support the proposed changes, with just 16% opposing the move.
Who could be against an ammendment to protect children rights.
The Iona institute and many Catholic organisations argued like this
http://http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=426.....constitutional law expert, Professor Gerard Hogan of Trinity College Dublin. Interestingly, he appears to be skeptical about the need for an amendment and also expresses reservations about the concept of a child’s ‘best interests’ because it leaves open the question in many cases of who get to decide what is in a given child’s interests, the parents or the State?.....
So the question again is, will this amendment give the State too much power at the expense of both parents and children?
So in the final turnout the results were in favour of the proposal but the majority vote was narrowed very considerable from when it was initially proposed.
This can happen again and in my opinion will happen again.Fionnan Sheahan – 11 November 2012
THE children's rights referendum has been passed by a narrow margin, with final results from all count centres across the country showing a result of 58pc in favour versus 42pc against.
I believe similar arguments will be used again. You may think this is a simple issue of the civil right to marry but it will be argued that no it is about the rights of children to have a mother and a father, that there is actually no need for this as civil partnership is available and can be amended, that the actual catholic silent majority doesnt want this but have been too nice to say so up to now and church organisations will become active arguing against it and publishing articles in Alive etc asking people to vote No.
There were huge arguments over every other change including divorce, legalisation of homosexuality, contraception, abortion, etc. Campaigns have a habit of getting nasty and its not easy and I think it is best to be prepared, willing and able to argue. Going in there all confident and thinking the conservative Catholic church, the Iona Institute and others, have completely lost their moral authority comes over as arrogant and not really understanding the values and ways of a lot of people in Ireland who hold different opinions to yourself.
I think the ammendment on same sex marriage could be passed but I think there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to keep a positive public presence able to argue with, yes, the Iona Institute and others.0 -
Advertisement
-
We need to pay attention and not get too secure in the idea that there is majority support at this stage for same sex marriage. Do not underestimate the power of conservative Ireland to scare monger and confuse the issue.
I agree that attention needs to be paid, and that we all need to argue our position. However, actually engaging with guys like the Iona Institute affords them a greater importance, and gives them the oxygen of publicity they just do not deserve.
Conservative Ireland seems to be quite comfortable about civil partnership and about human rights for everyone, including homosexual couples, so far, so it might be that they are less concerned with civil marriage for all too.For example this is what the referendum on the rights of the child looked like in the beginning
Who could be against an ammendment to protect children rights.
The Iona institute and many Catholic organisations argued like this
So in the final turnout the results were in favour of the proposal but the majority vote was narrowed very considerable from when it was initially proposed.
The point is that the amendment was passed, and the interesting point is that catholic Ireland, and their lobby groups like the Iona Institute were, and are, in the minority. Perhaps that is the most wonderful thing which has happened in recent years, and is cause for celebration.
I believe similar arguments will be used again.
And there is good reason to believe the same bad arguments will be seen for what they are, as bad arguments, as they were previously. That’s not to say that anyone should be complacent, far from it. We should all argue for tolerance, and human rights, against others bigotry. However, to have direct engagement with the Iona Institute seems to give them an importance they do not deserve. What they want is to be taken seriously, and to engage with them directly seems to afford them a degree of seriousness, which bolsters their importance, and consequently their utterances.
Fight these bigots, certainly. But not by engaging directly with them, but by keeping making the case for tolerance and human rights for all. Remember they are a tiny rump who have demonstrated, with every advance achieved, that they represent a tiny minority, and its better to appeal to the majority and try to marginalise intolerant bigots. Engaging directly with them simply gives them the oxygen of publicity.0 -
I know that in the US the "Family Values" argument against same gender adoption is becoming tired. What groups like Iona seem to fail to realise (or they are just so bigoted they don't want to realise) is that a gay or lesbian couple adopting a kid, who probably has no father or a mother on his/her own and is stuck in the child care system.
I don't understand how they can be opposed to a loving couple giving a unloved child a safe, and loving home. I hope to adopt one day (Only 23 so a while off obviously) but I know that I will be a great and loving Dad.0 -
ewan whose army wrote: »Iona
I don't understand how they can be opposed to a loving couple giving a unloved child a safe, and loving home. I hope to adopt one day (Only 23 so a while off obviously) but I know that I will be a great and loving Dad.
They get their position from the hysterical virgins in the Vatican and, as such, it's not a coherent or logical position. To "understand" their position, one has to suspend logic.0 -
georgesstreet wrote: »I agree that attention needs to be paid, and that we all need to argue our position. However, actually engaging with guys like the Iona Institute affords them a greater importance, and gives them the oxygen of publicity they just do not deserve.
Fight these bigots, certainly. But not by engaging directly with them, but by keeping making the case for tolerance and human rights for all. Remember they are a tiny rump who have demonstrated, with every advance achieved, that they represent a tiny minority, and its better to appeal to the majority and try to marginalise intolerant bigots. Engaging directly with them simply gives them the oxygen of publicity.
The point you seem to be missing is that they are already getting a huge amount of publicity through RTE, TV3, The Irish Times and The Irish Independent.
The other thing is that they are very sharp in terms of media training and a lot of the time they try extremely hard to appear as; nice, sympathetic, tolerant, open minded, fair - sometimes they lose this mask but not often.
They simply cant be ignored in the hope they will go away.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
The problem with the Iona Institute is that many of their arguments look sensible at first glance. The contradictions only become apparent when you dig into them , and let's face it, not everyone in the general public has the time or inclination to do that.
For example, the current claim that same sex marriage means denying a child their natural right to a mother and father has the veneer of accuracy to it. Most people have been raised by a man and a woman, and they are led to conclude that because it's the most common way, it must be the best way. That leaves it up to the pro-equality side to counter the point effectively, but concisely, which can be difficult to do, particularly in a TV or radio debate.
They're not as bad as some of the right wing groups in the US or the UK, but I wouldn't write them off either. The referendum means their side has to be given equal time on the airwaves, so they will be reaching large audiences.
One good thing about them is that they seem to keep using the same arguments, even when the flaws have been pointed out. Over time, people will begin to see through them, but it's going to take time and perseverance.0 -
Advertisement
-
mango salsa wrote: »The other thing is that they are very sharp in terms of media training and a lot of the time they try extremely hard to appear as; nice, sympathetic, tolerant, open minded, fair - sometimes they lose this mask but not often.
They simply cant be ignored in the hope they will go away.
+100% - they are adept at twisting facts and figures to justify and support their own viewpoint, at avoiding awkward questions and creating fear and apprehension - but always as you say in such a "caring" way.
They shouldn't ever be underestimated - they have the financial backing and media connections to make them a formidable opponent in any campaign.
Unlike the more extreme elements of the radical right Iona (and their allies in "Catholic Comment" which seems to have been formed from the same mould) strive to portray themselves as reasonable and measured.0 -
From what I gathered in the papers,
the clause relating to the restriction of same sex parents to adoption will be amended to exclude the adoption/child scenario being a factor in debate inthis referendum.
So if this is amended (wont it?) the Iona institute wouldnt be able to use
this as an argument during the referendum debate,
Can anyone clarify when the amendment to the restriction of same sex couple adoption will happen?0 -
mango salsa wrote: »The point you seem to be missing is that they are already getting a huge amount of publicity through RTE, TV3, The Irish Times and The Irish Independent.
The other thing is that they are very sharp in terms of media training and a lot of the time they try extremely hard to appear as; nice, sympathetic, tolerant, open minded, fair - sometimes they lose this mask but not often.
They simply cant be ignored in the hope they will go away.
And to engage with the directly gives them even more publicity. My position is they should get less publicity, (and you already agree they get far too much of it on RTE etc), and by engaging with them directly, as you seem to advocate, gives them, and their views, more publicity.
To repeat that it's entirely possibly to counter their views and show their arguments for what they are and not engage with them directly.+100% - they are adept at twisting facts and figures to justify and support their own viewpoint, at avoiding awkward questions and creating fear and apprehension - but always as you say in such a "caring" way.
So how come their views did not hold sway when it came to a vote? Maybe almost everyone else can see them for the bigoted people they are the same way you and I can, and just ignores them.0 -
youngblood wrote: »From what I gathered in the papers,
the clause relating to the restriction of same sex parents to adoption will be amended to exclude the adoption/child scenario being a factor in debate inthis referendum.
So if this is amended (wont it?) the Iona institute wouldnt be able to use
this as an argument during the referendum debate,
Can anyone clarify when the amendment to the restriction of same sex couple adoption will happen?
There's no timeline yet for the introduction of this legislation. It will presumably happen at some point before the referendum in 2015, but beyond that, it's not possible to say at this point.0 -
georgesstreet wrote: »And to engage with the directly gives them even more publicity. My position is they should get less publicity, (and you already agree they get far too much of it on RTE etc), and by engaging with them directly, as you seem to advocate, gives them, and their views, more publicity.
To repeat that it's entirely possibly to counter their views and show their arguments for what they are and not engage with them directly.
So how come their views did not hold sway when it came to a vote? Maybe almost everyone else can see them for the bigoted people they are the same way you and I can, and just ignores them.
As I said - they simply cannot be ignored in the hope they will go away. They have a very very strong media presence and their arguments are presented as "reasonable"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
mango salsa wrote: »As I said - they simply cannot be ignored in the hope they will go away. They have a very very strong media presence and their arguments are presented as "reasonable"
And as I said its possible to counter their bad arguments by not giving them the oxygen of publicity of engaging with them directly.0 -
georgesstreet wrote: »And as I said its possible to counter their bad arguments by not giving them the oxygen of publicity of engaging with them directly.
Indeed but then that is just ignoring them in the hope they will go awayIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
mango salsa wrote: »Indeed but then that is just ignoring them in the hope they will go away
You obviously have not read what I have said. I have specifically said that we should challenge their arguments, but not engage with them directly.
Ironically, your strategy of engaging with them to challenge their arguments is more likely to encourage them, and give them the oxygen of publicity, and increase their chances of seeing themselves as having a more important role than they would have.0 -
georgesstreet wrote: »You obviously have not read what I have said. I have specifically said that we should challenge their arguments, but not engage with them directly.
Ironically, your strategy of engaging with them to challenge their arguments is more likely to encourage them, and give them the oxygen of publicity, and increase their chances of seeing themselves as having a more important role than they would have.
It's not as simple as a bully on the playground, where if you ignore them they'll leave you alone. Sadly these people will get a heinous amount of publicity relative to their actual numbers, which is why people need to be quite vocal in pin-pointing the Institue's obvious homophobia and propaganda.0 -
Irelands broadcasting watchdog has directed that
So when both sides of an argument have to be presented for a referendum it wont be the people presenting the case for gay marriage who will choose who they would like to discuss this with it will be the heads of radio and television departments. It doesnt matter how representative each group is, or if they get a heinous amount of publicity relative to their actual numbers, all that is required is that they can present the opposing views and have personnel willing and able to do that when asked. Public broadcasting organisations are legally required to do this when presenting information in relation to a referendum. Its not our choice who we argue with.”The allocation of airtime must be equitable and fair to all interests and undertaken in a transparent manner,” says the BAI.
So look, we already know who will be on the opposing side and it wont be any surprise to see members of the Iona Institute.
Presenting the arguments for same sex marriage will probably be representatives from, Marriage Equality, GLEN and a few well known LGBT public figures who have been on television before, as well as interviews from a few lesbian and gay couples willing to talk about how it will impact on their lives.
Now with those two groups sitting in the television studio and all the various supporters in the audience on both sides how do you suggest the lesbian and gay representatives not engage with the representatives from the Iona Center, Georgestreet?
How do you suggest they deal with the Iona Institutes arguments but not give them any attention or deal with them directly.Georgestreet said
I have specifically said that we should challenge their arguments, but not engage 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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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 tebbit0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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..
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/0 -
The Iona Institutes own website has a page titled Personnel and Patrons.
Breda O'Brien is one of the five patrons.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/personnel_patrons.phpBreda 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.
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"
http://www.governancepages.org.uk/faq-2/faq-25-32-2/30-patrons/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.0 -
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.0 -
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 differenceIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
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 matterIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0
Advertisement