David Quinn - (Iona Institute) Speaking in Cavan

muldoon-boi

For those of you that don't know, David Quinn is the founder and leader of the Iona Institute. He is due to speak in Kingscourt on the 5th of November as a guest speaker as part of the Novena Week.

Here is an extract from one of their recent publications & is basically what they stand for:

"Those who claim that same-sex couples and
married opposite-sex couples should be treated
identically must demonstrate that there is no
advantage to children in encouraging men and
women to marry. They must also demonstrate
that children have no right to be raised by their
own mother and father, even as a matter of first
principle.
Only after demonstrating that there is no relevant
difference between opposite-sex couples and
same-sex couples, especially from the point of view
of children, and that the right to a mother and
father where possible does not exist, can same-sex
marriage be justified."

David Quinn has also voiced his opinion last week in the Independant:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-well-pay-a-heavy-price-for-allowing-samesex-unions-2096819.html

I Have also attached a .pdf of Tuesdays metro hearld where another leader of the Iona Institute expressed his views on Same sex marriage.

What do you guys suggest in this case? Go to the talk and ask him questions? Walk out? Challenge him afterwards? Would like to hear your opinions on the matter!

Azure_sky

A Christian demanding evidence and shifting the burden of proof......hilarious.

rainbow kirby

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. :pac:

Endymion

His opinions aren't extreme and are shared by many Irish people. Gay Adoption, in this country will never become a reality in this country until these people concerns are dealt with. The children's referendum will probably do more for gay adoption right than any civil rights legislation, as we will finally redefine what "the well being of the child" really means.

Not, his comments could also be advocating that the biological children of gay parents should be removed from their care. Something much more serious.

gcgirl

Iona ****wits

foggy_lad

David who?? Iona? Is that not in Scotland somewhere? Sorry but I just ignore these wastes who need sensational stories and headlines to flog their latest book or lecture circuit.

Meesared

*gets some IRL trolling ideas in mind*

ongarboy

Unfortunately, David Quinn is too familiar for my liking. He seems to pop up on the Irish Independent on an almost weekly basis spouting his conservative Catholic views and while the articles are not anti gay per se, many of the articles do not promote equality or fairness in respect to LGBT issues if he feels such issues compromise the supremacy of the Catholic ethos.

He is often on shows like Primetime/Vincent Browne etc too. I acknowlege and welcome freedom of speech from all sides as long as it is balanced but I do not see as many counter argument articles published in such mainstream journals as the Indo as often which would challenge Mr Quinn's opinions.

L1011

He "seems to" pop up in the Indo because, surreally, he's a regular columnist. Every Friday

Annasopra

Sometimes I think he and John Waters and Kevin Myers and Brenda Power relish in the reactions to them and they are much better ignored.

TylerIE

The OP said 5th November but its actually 5th April...

Seeing as its coming up a friend is considering attending... Id love to be in a position to go but am not... any "thought provoking" questions she should ask him??

I was 50/50 about resurrecting this for fear of giving him publicity- but realistically if any of his supporters cite whats here their support for him is likely a form of their own internalised homophobia!

diddlybit

MYOB wrote: »

He "seems to" pop up in the Indo because, surreally, he's a regular columnist. Every Friday

I am continally surprised that a national publication could grant a regular slot to his hate-mongering. And that goes for the others as well.

Annasopra

diddlybit wrote: »

I am continally surprised that a national publication could grant a regular slot to his hate-mongering. And that goes for the others as well.

I'm not - The newspapers know that this kind of stuff gets a reaction - The links to these articles get emailed around hundreds of times - They can then say to advertisers - look at the amount of online readers we have

diddlybit

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm not - The newspapers know that this kind of stuff gets a reaction - The links to these articles get emailed around hundreds of times - They can then say to advertisers - look at the amount of online readers we have

So true. Especially when they post a particularily hateful article, everyone gets offended, leaves an opinion in the comments box and then the site traffic goes up.

You reckon if we ignore them, they'll just go away?

Einhard

ongarboy wrote: »

He is often on shows like Primetime/Vincent Browne etc too. I acknowlege and welcome freedom of speech from all sides as long as it is balanced but I do not see as many counter argument articles published in such mainstream journals as the Indo as often which would challenge Mr Quinn's opinions.

As an atheist and a liberal, I take it pretty much as given that I'm rarely likely to agree with David Quinn, and his coservative, reactionary fellow travellers. However, I think it's important that they be gven a platform. His views are shared by a considerable proportion of the population and, as you say, we can't just censor those voices we don't agree with. More importantly, from a personal POV, I read his articles because they make me think about why I hold certain views and have certain beliefs. His arguments make me assess my own, and thus to refine them. Ironically, his points strengthen my own beliefs, both internally, and in their articulation.

I also don't think that there need be a rebuttal of his views. They are in the minority. He is swimming very much against the current, and he knows it. Society have moved forward, and there's a realisation that his way of thinking is shared by an increasingly small proportion. The passage of gay partnership legislation, the increasing acceptance of gay couples etc are rebuttals enough IMO.

As to what people should do, I'd implore people to be respectful to the man. Nothing irritates me more than "liberals" jeering and heckling and abusing those they don't agree with. I very much doubt that anyone here would advocate such action, but I've been to enough addresses in Uni to know that when some "liberals" don't like a particular view, they very often try to silence it.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Sometimes I think he and John Waters and Kevin Myers and Brenda Power relish in the reactions to them and they are much better ignored.

I don't think this is true of Quinn. How could it be really? He's a conservative Catholic. His views reflect that. They aren't reactionary in the traditional sense. To him, I suppose, the beliefs and views of modern liberal society are outrageous and provocative.

Einhard

diddlybit wrote: »

I am continally surprised that a national publication could grant a regular slot to his hate-mongering. And that goes for the others as well.

I think this is very unfair. I read Quinn's articles. I disagree with Quinn on practically everything. I've yet to read anything in which he has sought to incite hate against a particular group. To brand those with different opinions to your own as hate-mongers, isn't exactly tolerant either.

diddlybit

Einhard wrote: »

I think this is very unfair. I read Quinn's articles. I disagree with Quinn on practically everything. I've yet to read anything in which he has sought to incite hate against a particular group. To brand those with different opinions to your own as hate-mongers, isn't exactly tolerant either.

Until I am no longer a second class citizen and until myself and my partner can enjoy the FULL rights of any heterosexual couple, I will call it hate-mongering. When I have that, Quinn can say whatever he likes, because following that I will no longer care. He is being given a platform to influence people who may possibly vote on this issue, and is doing so through flawed logic and sensationalist speech.

For example:
"It should also know that over time, more and more Christians are going to discover that through this Bill the Government will equate their belief in traditional marriage with racism. Sooner or later it will pay a price for this because it will not be forgotten. "

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-well-pay-a-heavy-price-for-allowing-samesex-unions-2096819.html

If this is not trying to breed fear and prejudice through reverse arguing, I do not know what he's doing. He will play the racism card, in order to instil the odd idea that civil marriage will result in the marginalisation and a new wave of Christianophobia (?) that will ensue, yet will not acknowledge his own homophobia.

PeterIanStaker

Quinn is a bigot with a platform, just like Myers, Harris et al.

His little one-man-band, the Iona Institute is a conservative catholic think tank (now there's irony!) who would like to drag the country, bad and all as it is now, back to the parochial 1930's. I'm sure in his ideal world, the Magdalene Laundries would be back in business.

Sure, I would never say censor him, and by all means let him have his say, just so people can see how wrong he is when it comes to how he would treat his fellow human beings.

mollzer

I feel sorry for the likes of him, with all that is going on in our world these days why is same sex couples the 'hot' topic?

IMO its not because the Civil Partnership bill has finally come through.....but because homosexuals are in the minority and as anyone knows a bully ie Catholic church, will always pick on the person/s with a weaker voice ie same sex couples. The church is running out of things to give out about.

Same sex couples are a small minority of the population of coupledom in Ireland, and pose no known risk to hetrosexual couples. I may be wrong but as far as I know being gay isnt contagious.

So feck the likes of David Quinn, as another poster said his listeners are a small portion of Catholics and the less attention he gets the better.

HerbSimpson

Never hear him giving out about sex before marriage which is also apparently wrong, or what about contraceptives ? The gays are just easy targets...

TylerIE

Post event I think its worth noting that he focused on the "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and even if others argue that its consenting adults there is still the children to think of...

He then focused on "somebody please think of the children" line and prefaced it and followed it by "but as soon as I say that Im accused of being a bigot for thinking that a child is best off raised by its mother and who stay together until the child grows up and afterwards"

He also did this under the guise of talking about the issues that were most important to Pope Benedict when he visited London...

It was demoralising to see a large attendance, including many children. Nobody appeared to challenge him, nor was their huge public agreement.

There was total ignorance to the fact that gay individuals can have children or adopt or foster as individuals. He did say that some (straight) couples are unable to have children but at least their marriage can "offer" the stability of a man and woman. He also chose to go for the easiest yet smallest group of non-traditional families in society - he didnt go for single parents/teen pregnancies/ unmarried couples but instead targeted the gays! He apparently knew that wouldnt be so easily tolerated!

TylerIE

mollzer wrote: »

So feck the likes of David Quinn, as another poster said his listeners are a small portion of Catholics and the less attention he gets the better.

Unfortunately yesterday his listeners were in the hundreds, including dozens of children and teenagers.

Some of them are gay... and others have gay cousins, aunts and uncles, and all will have gay acquaintances, school and college friends... They are being fed a pile of fecal material that has the effect of helping create a new generation of homophobes and re-creating difficulty for those "growing up gay" in an area where its already tough enough... I would hope that by paying attention to his message we can all ensure that our individual "circles of influence" are informed of his message, and how and why its inaccurate and how to address it - for the benefit of every gay individual now and in future generations.

diddlybit

lst wrote: »

Unfortunately yesterday his listeners were in the hundreds, including dozens of children and teenagers.

God, that's so depressing. It must have been painful to sit through that drivel.

Teddy_Picker

lst wrote: »

Post event I think its worth noting that he focused on the "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and even if others argue that its consenting adults there is still the children to think of...

He then focused on "somebody please think of the children" line and prefaced it and followed it by "but as soon as I say that Im accused of being a bigot for thinking that a child is best off raised by its mother and who stay together until the child grows up and afterwards"

Quinn has this line of circular thinking and twisting of the facts down to a fine art. Why does he (and others that share his views) seem to think of "traditional" heterosexual parents as this kind of fairytale paradigm, to be defended at all costs? True, for kids to grow up in a family with two loving parents (of whatever orientation) that is stable, secure and nourishing is wonderful, but ehhh...life doesn't work that way! Families break down, the pressures of life get in the way, in the current climate, many families find themselves in situations where spouses spend a lot of time apart for work commitments, in situations where family members are in the military they often spend months apart over a long number of years, parents simply die, I could go on and on and on...as long as human beings exist, Quinn's Narnia vision is never going to play out!

He also did this under the guise of talking about the issues that were most important to Pope Benedict when he visited London...

It was demoralising to see a large attendance, including many children. Nobody appeared to challenge him, nor was their huge public agreement.

There was total ignorance to the fact that gay individuals can have children or adopt or foster as individuals. He did say that some (straight) couples are unable to have children but at least their marriage can "offer" the stability of a man and woman. He also chose to go for the easiest yet smallest group of non-traditional families in society - he didnt go for single parents/teen pregnancies/ unmarried couples but instead targeted the gays! He apparently knew that wouldnt be so easily tolerated!

Urgh, now that really annoys me, how in the name of sweet Christ on a bike is a man/woman relationship inherently more stable?

Gah. :mad:

TylerIE

diddlybit wrote: »

God, that's so depressing. It must have been painful to sit through that drivel.

I did leave for a while.... and felt physically sick at the beginning when I seen the crowd... plus there was a shining example of a parent with an unplanned child being displayed in the chapel throughout the event - particularly when the delightful speaker was entertaining us...

aidan24326

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Sometimes I think he and John Waters and Kevin Myers and Brenda Power relish in the reactions to them and they are much better ignored.

In fairness at least Waters and Myers write the odd decent article, Quinn just spouts the same conservative drivel time after time. He's ill-informed and misguided about alot of things. For example he has written articles about the whole creationism/evolution debate which showed a total lack of understanding of the actual subject matter. I'd try to ignore him as much as possible, he's not that high profile really.