The Iona Institute

ewan whose army

I have been trying to learn more about the LGBT history since I think it will help me be more confident in my own sexuality and since I plan to train to become a LGBT adviser one day it would be help to understand the whole anti-gay marriage thing.

Anyway I saw this video "Irish Anti Gay Marriage" ad on youtube and its just the whole "Gay marriage hurts the children and family" nonsense that is constantly spun, but what is worse is this aired in the US, they seem to want to meddle in other countries as well as Ireland. Does anyone know anything about them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0xOGVw3KJE

Ten of Swords

From their website...

The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society. We defend the continued existence of publicly-funded denominational schools. We also promote freedom of conscience and religion.

It was founded in 2007 by journalist David Quinn. They are based in Dublin.

There is a thread about a lawsuit they threatned to take against University Times (the Trinity College student newspaper) for two articles written by students here

I'm not sure how many supporters or patrons they have but I certainly find their publications relating to marriage and/or gay rights tend to get people pretty worked up.

Tara Flynn released a parody of their video on her YouTube channel. It's funny as f**k :D

ewan whose army

My Mum never made me cake

Lou.m

ewan whose army wrote: »

I have been trying to learn more about the LGBT history since I think it will help me be more confident in my own sexuality and since I plan to train to become a LGBT adviser one day it would be help to understand the whole anti-gay marriage thing.

Anyway I saw this video "Irish Anti Gay Marriage" ad on youtube and its just the whole "Gay marriage hurts the children and family" nonsense that is constantly spun, but what is worse is this aired in the US, they seem to want to meddle in other countries as well as Ireland. Does anyone know anything about them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0xOGVw3KJE

The Iona Institute are a pro-life anti gay far right institution. They have a contact on the RTE board who was an ex priest Tom Savage. And they seem to have access to RTE. They are invited on the national broadcaster to comment a lot. They get a lot of funds from the church and from the US.

In Ireland anyone can call themselves and institute however int eh UK they have controls over words people use and they have standards of who can use the word institute.

Iona is simply a pressure group funded from sources undisclosed.

In the UK an institute must be a professional body institutes in the UK are organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing. They must meet a standard that Iona would not meet.


They had a disastrous submission to the Constitutional Convention that went badly.they are unelected, unrepresentative right-wing Catholics who nevertheless have unlimited access to our publicly-funded broadcaster’s air time, for no obvious reason. And they are not that bright.

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.

This is how they describe themselves

The only organization in the world designed exclusively for top-ranking Catholic business leaders and their spouses. [My emphasis]. In a dynamic way, Legatus brings together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business – connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.

Legatus, the Latin word for ambassador, exists to help you become an “ambassador for Christ” (2Cor 5:20) and help you meet the challenges of balancing the responsibilities of faith, family, business and community. Since 1987 Legatus has been bringing together Catholic business leaders and their spouses in a unique format that fosters spiritual growth, formation and commitment.

The organization offers a unique support network of like-minded Catholics who influence the world marketplace and have the ability to practice and infuse their faith in the daily lives and workplaces of their family, friends, colleagues and employees.

Businesses can join

http://www.legatus.org/qualifications

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

markfla

quote from their video "every child that was ever born has a mum and a dad"....except for jesus that is :rolleyes:

ewan whose army

Lou.m wrote: »

The Iona Institute are a pro-life anti gay far right institution. They have a contact on the RTE board who was an ex priest Tom Savage. And they seem to have access to RTE. They are invited on the national broadcaster to comment a lot. They get a lot of funds from the church and from the US.

In Ireland anyone can call themselves and institute however int eh UK they have controls over words people use and they have standards of who can use the word institute.

Iona is simply a pressure group funded from sources undisclosed.

In the UK an institute must be a professional body institutes in the UK are organisations that typically undertake research at the highest level or are professional bodies of the highest standing. They must meet a standard that Iona would not meet.


They had a disastrous submission to the Constitutional Convention that went badly.they are unelected, unrepresentative right-wing Catholics who nevertheless have unlimited access to our publicly-funded broadcaster’s air time, for no obvious reason. And they are not that bright.

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.

This is how they describe themselves



Businesses can join

http://www.legatus.org/qualifications

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

This is kinda worrying, I am disappointed in RTÉ mind, I thought that as the public broadcaster they couldn't have political influence on the board (the BBC can't)

I am not sure if they operate in the UK, during the Equal Marriage bill the other month the catholic angle was from a certain archbishop who was found to be up for some fun in the seminary so maybe they didn't want to taint themselves or something.

I guess they are like the Catholic version of a group in the UK called "Christian Voice" they are nowhere near as well funded though but both uber-right wing and both run by seemingly nasty people. Stephen Green was famous in the UK for saying that Uganda is right for its Kill The Gay bill and that he would love to do the same to us

I would question a psychiatrist who is on the board for such a thing. I would worry that his political opinions would affect his professional ones.

Annasopra

lou.m the bit you have quoted from the bock the robber site is about Legatus which is a separate organisation

Annasopra

ewan whose army wrote: »

This is kinda worrying, I am disappointed in RTÉ mind, I thought that as the public broadcaster they couldn't have political influence on the board (the BBC can't)

I am not sure if they operate in the UK, during the Equal Marriage bill the other month the catholic angle was from a certain archbishop who was found to be up for some fun in the seminary so maybe they didn't want to taint themselves or something.

I guess they are like the Catholic version of a group in the UK called "Christian Voice" they are nowhere near as well funded though but both uber-right wing and both run by seemingly nasty people. Stephen Green was famous in the UK for saying that Uganda is right for its Kill The Gay bill and that he would love to do the same to us

I would question a psychiatrist who is on the board for such a thing. I would worry that his political opinions would affect his professional ones.

You have to look at this in context really

* The 1937 constitution of Ireland was approved by the vatican.
* Eamon deValera and Archbishop McQuaid of Dublin were very good friends between the 1930 s and 1950s and McQuaid often very strongly politically represented church policy. He had very strong influence on social policy and tried to attempt control of RTE when it was launched in the 1960s
* Condoms were illegal until 1980. Between 1980 and 1985 you couldnt get condoms without a prescription from your doctor.

* Gay male sex was illegal in Ireland until 1993

* The links between church and state and church and national broadcaster have been incredibly strong since the 1930s - so many social rights have had to be fought again and again against Church influence.

Iona realise that the conservative far right side of the Church have lost the public argument on many issues; contraception, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, - by using a group who are very well connected in media and political circles they are still trying to hold onto the influence.

brownej

In the context of Ionas ease of access to RTE I wouldn't go so far as to suggest conspiracy when journalistic laziness is a more likely explanation.
RTE always try and have two sides to a discussion (even when one side is mumbo jumbo nonsense) and Iona will always supply someone if asked. They may be extreme in their views but they are a slick operation so don't necessarily come across as crazy loons. ON TV and radio they are presentable so its no wonder RTE keep returning to them.
If you ever notice with RTE they have a very small contact list for all areas of discussion. they seem to make zero effort to widen their contributor list out.
It seems like "academics" like Diarmuid Ferriter, Constantin Gurdgiev, Stephen Kinsella, and others like Breda O'Brien, Ronan lyons etc are always on RTE. They just don't bother to widen their address book.

It also helps the Iona institute that they are able to trot out people with a "Veneer" of credibility. People like Senator Ronan Mullen amoungst others.

I really don't like them.....

Ambersky

I would imagine with the up and coming constitutional referendum on same sex marriage we will be getting to know them all a lot better.
Even though there is a majority now in favor of same sex civil marriage the Iona Institute will be one of the groups working hard to narrow that majority by I would imagine arguing that this will deprive children of their rights to a mother and father, against Gods law, already protected and dont need it, taking away the status and real rights of opposite sex couples, etc . (dont argue with me Im just saying).
They will probably also join with RC organisations who as the Vatican has declared are to work hard against civil marriage for same sex couples.
This will be a real education in how this all works so be prepared for some arguments and being able to clarify the situation against some deliberate scare mongering. Individual votes will matter and it is at least partly because so many people know some LGBT people in their lives already, that they are at the moment favorably disposed to the idea. They may be looking to the LGBT people they know if they are having doubts so knowing what kind of arguments you are likely to be coming up against and how to answer them could be important.

Vivisectus

I see they have been trotting out Mark Regnerus's study again. Shere genius: lets compare the outcomes of children who are raised in a "biologically intact" family (can you say dog whistle?) to outcomes for children raised by lesbian mothers.

I bet I could run this same experiment and prove that left-handed people are worse parents on average.

Ambersky

I know it may seem very simple and obvious to you Vivisectus but would you mind explaining the basic argument of that study and whats wrong with it.
I think information like that may be useful for those of us who will be in discussions where stuff like that is presented to us even if its only by people who have heard it on TV.

Vivisectus

Professor Regerus decided to have study into the long-term effects of same-sex parenting. The result seemed to show that people raised by same-sex parents had a higher rate of depression and welfare use - at least that is how the good professor represented the outcome of his own study on some of the more conservative TV channels.

However, there were a few problems with the study. Firstly, because his data-set was rather narrow, he had to widen his criteria to "people raised by women who have, at one stage, had a same-sex relationship". This makes the study of doubtful relevance, but that aside.

The real issue, however, is that he compared the data from this set to what he called "biologically intact families" (the phrase itself should kind of give the game away).

In other words - these people were pre-selected to include only families in which children were raised by their biological parents, that never got divorced.

As you can see, this introduces multiple variables into the test. It would be fine to compare families that stay the same to ones that change - both gay and straight. It would be fine to compare all straight relationships with all gay ones, without pre-selecting the straight group and choosing only respondents that stayed together. But comparing preselected straight relationships with non-preselected gay ones makes it a deeply flawed study. In fact it is hard to imagine a better example of selection bias.

Vivisectus

To give an example of why this is wrong: Imagine 2 sets of 400 people. One of them is made up exclusively of redheads. The other group is made up of people who do not have red hair, and who all have more than 5 years no-claims bonus.

The red-headed group will be more likely to have had a car accident. But that is not because red-headed people are worse drivers: it is because the other group was selected using a criterium that makes them more likely not to have had a car-accident.

What I find worrying is that organizations like Iona happily reference these studies without pointing out the selections. To his academic peers, Regerus admits that the study does not show a causal link between the increased rates of depression and welfare use and being raised by a lesbian mother. Conservative media and the likes of the Iona institute happily claim it is evidence that having gay parents in bad for you.

Markcheese

I'd kind of agree with Iona institute,gay marriage would be bad for my family...
So i didn't marry a guy...
My advice to freaked out anti gay marriage campaigners get over yourself and make sure you don't marry someone of the same sex... Problem solved.... WHEN the referendum gets passed it'll be optional not compulsory...

Vivisectus

Yeah - if you read those godawful pieces that Iona's David Quinn writes for the Independent you'd swear that once gay adoption is OK-ed, squads of government-sanctioned gay ninjas will be going house-to-house stealing people's children.

ewan whose army

Vivisectus wrote: »

Professor Regerus decided to have study into the long-term effects of same-sex parenting. The result seemed to show that people raised by same-sex parents had a higher rate of depression and welfare use - at least that is how the good professor represented the outcome of his own study on some of the more conservative TV channels.

However, there were a few problems with the study. Firstly, because his data-set was rather narrow, he had to widen his criteria to "people raised by women who have, at one stage, had a same-sex relationship". This makes the study of doubtful relevance, but that aside.

The real issue, however, is that he compared the data from this set to what he called "biologically intact families" (the phrase itself should kind of give the game away).

In other words - these people were pre-selected to include only families in which children were raised by their biological parents, that never got divorced.

As you can see, this introduces multiple variables into the test. It would be fine to compare families that stay the same to ones that change - both gay and straight. It would be fine to compare all straight relationships with all gay ones, without pre-selecting the straight group and choosing only respondents that stayed together. But comparing preselected straight relationships with non-preselected gay ones makes it a deeply flawed study. In fact it is hard to imagine a better example of selection bias.

I remember seeing his work used in a horrid Russian anti-gay advert. The guy responsible for it is starting to regret it

Ten of Swords

ewan whose army wrote: »

I remember seeing his work used in a horrid Russian anti-gay advert. The guy responsible for it is starting to regret it

The study was the cornerstone of the proposed bill to take away the kids of gay parents in Russia. I made a post about it a couple of months ago here

Vivisectus

Well, thanks again Texas. God that is depressing. Bigoted laws based on demonstrably bad science.

I don't know if I should feel glad that all Iona can do is publish poisonous little articles, or scared to see what that kind of thinking can lead to.

Ambersky

I think it is really really good to hear that explained Vivisectus.
This is the kind of stuff I think people need to hear, the clearer we can be with our arguments the less side tracking that can be done.

ewan whose army

Being a psychology PhD student I read the article for his study, and to be honest it can easily be misinterpreted to suit your own way. Iona etc. take bits out of context and ignore others (Just like they do with the Bible :-S)

The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values. I would want to see a larger sample size IMO to get a better outcome.

ewan whose army

Vivisectus wrote: »

Yeah - if you read those godawful pieces that Iona's David Quinn writes for the Independent you'd swear that once gay adoption is OK-ed, squads of government-sanctioned gay ninjas will be going house-to-house stealing people's children.

So is the Irish Independent like the Daily Mail in the UK?

David Quinn sounds like an Irish Peter Hitchins (A fundamentalist Anglican who is amusingly the brother of Christopher Hitchins the uber atheist) . He currently has this feud with gay people, most famously he tried to rip Stephen Fry to shreds in him Mail column

Annasopra

ewan whose army wrote: »

So is the Irish Independent like the Daily Mail in the UK?

Mostly not that bad but it does have some writers with a similar style such as Kevin Myers, David Quinn, Eilis O Hanlon, Ian O'Doherty

lfqnic

ewan whose army wrote: »

So is the Irish Independent like the Daily Mail in the UK?

David Quinn sounds like an Irish Peter Hitchins (A fundamentalist Anglican who is amusingly the brother of Christopher Hitchins the uber atheist) . He currently has this feud with gay people, most famously he tried to rip Stephen Fry to shreds in him Mail column

The Indo IS bad, but I don't think it's daily mail bad. Also, they have more than one platform - you'll often see Breda O'Brien's pus on the front page of the Irish Times site, particularly during the abortion debate. I think they're about as close as the (last guard of the) hard catholic right get to 'intellectual', which is a relief, but they ARE good scaremongers.

Vivisectus

ewan whose army wrote: »

So is the Irish Independent like the Daily Mail in the UK?

David Quinn sounds like an Irish Peter Hitchins (A fundamentalist Anglican who is amusingly the brother of Christopher Hitchins the uber atheist) . He currently has this feud with gay people, most famously he tried to rip Stephen Fry to shreds in him Mail column

I will be sure to look that up - I do hope Fry gives a good reply

The Indo is not quite as bad as the DM (it actually still classifies as a newspaper) but they do have a few very awful opinion-piece contributors.

Quinn likes to write long alarmist rants - he equates allowing gay people to adopt with a breach of the right of a child to be raised by a non-same sex couple, for instance. Pretty much the usual rationalizations for restricting gay rights on emotional or religious grounds.

Vivisectus

ewan whose army wrote: »

Being a psychology PhD student I read the article for his study, and to be honest it can easily be misinterpreted to suit your own way. Iona etc. take bits out of context and ignore others (Just like they do with the Bible :-S)

The t test outcomes are loosely significant as are the p values. I would want to see a larger sample size IMO to get a better outcome.

Very loosely, though. It is not controlled enough to warrant much of a conclusion at all I think.

ewan whose army

Vivisectus wrote: »

Very loosely, though. It is not controlled enough to warrant much of a conclusion at all I think.

Its one of those types of papers that get through peer review probably because it was submitted by a professor. Peer Review is a very inconsistent process, I have read some complete nonsense in my time.

Vivisectus

Funny you should say that - one of the reviewers seems to have been a chum of the ole prof and there were some serious questions about how the hell this got through the review.

ewan whose army

Vivisectus wrote: »

Funny you should say that - one of the reviewers seems to have been a chum of the ole prof and there were some serious questions about how the hell this got through the review.

Hmmm wondering if I should suggest it be used as an example of a poor article (we all have to do seminars on how to write the things) .

This happens a lot, if it wasn't submitted from a Prof. then it would probably have get reviewed properly.

ewan whose army

The Regnerus anti-gay parenting “study” by Mark Regnerus (image, above) is “deeply flawed” and as a result, the author himself is “disgraced,” says the study’s top appointed scholarly reviewer.

In a lengthy interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Darren Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University, and a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research — the publisher of the Regnerus “study,” officially the “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) – once again decimates the Regnerus paper.

“When we talk about Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study,” Sherkat tells the Southern Poverty Law Center:

It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad, and that it was substandard.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/regnerus-is-disgraced-anti-gay-parenting-study-deeply-flawed-says-appointed-reviewer/politics/2013/05/29/67639#.UoHzh_m-2Fw

Maybe thats why I can't find it on SCOPUS anymore, I had to pull it from Iona's server

Also how flawed is this. His study had included bisexual parents who were in a hetrosexual relationship, and probably the experimenting that alot of us do with the same sex, in my case it was more than experimenting but including one night stands at college etc. into this wow :

In fact, Regnerus used a sample of adults who were asked not if their parents were LGBT, but if they thought their parents had ever had sex or a relationship with a member of the same-sex. Only a handful of the study’s participants were actually raised by a same-sex couple.

Vivisectus

And yet, Iona references the study here:

Children do better in traditional families than in same-sex families, study says

georgesstreet

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?

Vivisectus

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.

georgesstreet

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.

Annasopra

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.

Ambersky

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

04/12/2006
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.

http://http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/large-majority-supports-referendum-on-childrens-rights-287822.html

Who could be against an ammendment to protect children rights.
The Iona institute and many Catholic organisations argued like this

.....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?

http://http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=426

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.

georgesstreet

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

ewan whose army

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.

georgesstreet

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.

Annasopra

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.

NuMarvel

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.

lottpaul

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.

youngblood

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?

georgesstreet

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.

lottpaul wrote: »

+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.

NuMarvel

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.

Annasopra

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"

georgesstreet

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.

Annasopra

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 away

georgesstreet

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.

Ash885

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.

Ambersky

Irelands broadcasting watchdog has directed that

”The allocation of airtime must be equitable and fair to all interests and undertaken in a transparent manner,” says the BAI.

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.

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?

Georgestreet said
I have specifically said that we should challenge their arguments, but not engage with them directly.

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.