Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Femme_Fatale

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.
There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

eviltwin

No

I heard that RTE had to issue an apology to them last night. Funny how a group who make a living out of making rude and hurtful comments about others get so sensitive when someone else does it. Yes they are homophobic and the media shouldn't give them, or similar groups a platform.

P_1

No

They should be free to publish what they wish but people should also be free to cal them out on what they publish and to mock them without having to fear them getting legally upset.

pragmatic1

Em. I'm going to go with yes.

gctest50

They are everything-except-their-very-narrow-approved-list-of-crazy-phobic


Their god works in mysterious ways though apparently

Links234

No

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia.

You know, I've heard a lot of people say that, but I still haven't heard of any arguments against marriage equality that are not stemming from homophobia. Were people who were opposed to interracial marriage (like around the time of Loving vs Virginia, etc) not necessarily racist?

Not that being homophobic makes someone a bad person exactly, homophobia stems from ignorance in most cases I think and is very much learned.

Frank Lee Midere

They object, I think, to the term homophobia - a phobia being an irrational hatred. Certainly that term is used, as we see here, to curtail debate but then they also curtail debate by bringing in the lawyers. The latter is worse than the former.

Manach

They constitant portray a balanced pro-family traditional world view and provide material to discuss the issues within a conservative framework on the sanctity of marriage and the norms of historical morally. They seem as well not to dwell on the cliche and sound-bite speech of their some of their progressive opponents who seek to clamp down on the debate by seeking to denigrate their opponents by applying any amount of tags, such as being homophobic.

Nodin

No

efb wrote: »

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

I reckon they are. When you look at the various linked individuals and organisations, you start to see a far more conservative and extreme outlook than Iona lets on to in its media friendly moments.

Nodin

No

Manach wrote: »

They constitant portray a balanced pro-family traditional world view and provide material to discuss the issues within a conservative framework on the sanctity of marriage and the norms of historical morally. They seem as well not to dwell on the cliche and sound-bite speech of their some of their progressive opponents who seek to clamp down on the debate by seeking to denigrate their opponents by applying any amount of tags, such as being homophobic.

.....no non "pro creative" sex within marriage, no contraception......no thanks.

_Redzer_

No

Manach wrote: »

They constitant portray a balanced pro-family traditional world view and provide material to discuss the issues within a conservative framework on the sanctity of marriage and the norms of historical morally. They seem as well not to dwell on the cliche and sound-bite speech of their some of their progressive opponents who seek to clamp down on the debate by seeking to denigrate their opponents by applying any amount of tags, such as being homophobic.

No they don't. They're incredibly biased and lie constantly to people.

Corkfeen

No

It's simply a statement of fact. I can also comfortably say that those who opposed the civil rights movement were racist. They rely on debunked studies to back themselves, proof enough of their prejudice.

Teyla Emmagan

No

I think they're a bunch of loopers.

That's my considered input into the debate.

Femme_Fatale

Manach wrote: »

They constitant portray a balanced pro-family traditional world view and provide material to discuss the issues within a conservative framework on the sanctity of marriage and the norms of historical morally. They seem as well not to dwell on the cliche and sound-bite speech of their some of their progressive opponents who seek to clamp down on the debate by seeking to denigrate their opponents by applying any amount of tags, such as being homophobic.

Dude, proof-read. And there's a way of saying the above in much simpler English. They DO dwell on clichés and soundbites btw though (their own).

efb

No

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.
There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

If people think there cannot be interracial marriage are they racist?

drunkmonkey

efb wrote: »

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Judging only based on this video, I'd say no.

I don't agree someone wanting to protect marriage (family environment) is being homophobic. Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays.
I can completely understand why people will fight to keep it as it is.

Racisms and Pro Marriage can't be really thrown together as easy as your doing it.

efb

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Judging only based on this video, I'd say no.

I don't agree someone wanting to protect marriage (family environment) is being homophobic. Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays.
I can completely understand why people will fight to keep it as it is.

Racisms and Pro Marriage can't be really thrown together as easy as your doing it.

What traditional marriage? Women being property of men? No divorce?

How does marriage equality extended to gays undermine Hetro marriage?

efb

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Judging only based on this video, I'd say no.

I don't agree someone wanting to protect marriage (family environment) is being homophobic. Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays.
I can completely understand why people will fight to keep it as it is.

Racisms and Pro Marriage can't be really thrown together as easy as your doing it.

I'm pro marraige I WANT TO GET MARRIED

eviltwin

No

Protecting marriage? We're not voting to abolish it you know. You would think the best way to protect marriage would be to make it accessible to more people.

AerynSun

No

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

They object, I think, to the term homophobia - a phobia being an irrational hatred. Certainly that term is used, as we see here, to curtail debate but then they also curtail debate by bringing in the lawyers. The latter is worse than the former.

Actually, a phobia is not an 'irrational hatred', but an 'irrational fear'.

I quite like the quote from the old Tweets From God page that put it so nicely:

"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared; you're an asshole."

:pac:

Links234

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays.

Calling marriage equality "The destruction of traditional marriage" is a pretty homophobic thing to say though.

ahnowbrowncow

No

efb wrote: »

What traditional marriage? Women being property of men? No divorce?

How does marriage equality extended to gays undermine Hetro marriage?

Omg, it just does, ok!

Stop asking questions that have no rational answers.

20Cent

No

I think they are.

amdublin

No

I think they are complete Loonies who need to fek off out of other people's business.

Concentrate on your own marriage and stop worrying about other people's.

P_1

No

Personally I think anybody who fears that same sex marriage would destroy marriage as an institution needs to have a listen to this speech made in the New Zealand parliament,

RobertKK

I think some so called liberal people want everyone to think the same on all issues and have problems with people from the Iona Institute because it gives a different viewpoint, then they need to look down on the person with an opposing opinion.

If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.

If we live in a free society then people should be allowed to have different opinions without needing to put the person into a box.
If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.

efb

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think some so called liberal people want everyone to think the same on all issues and have problems with people from the Iona Institute because it gives a different viewpoint, then they need to look down on the person with an opposing opinion.

If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.

If we live in a free society then people should be allowed to have different opinions without needing to put the person into a box.
If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.

Nobody here is challenging their right to air their views, but people have a right to challenge them. Like the BNP are racist and should be exposed and identified as such.

Karl Stein

Should the state be in the business of discriminating against/for anyone who decides to sprinkle themselves in magical 'we're married' fairy dust?

RobertKK

Links234 wrote: »

Calling marriage equality "The destruction of traditional marriage" is a pretty homophobic thing to say though.

If everyone can marry what sex they want, then surely traditional marriage is destroyed by it, given marriage was only between a man and a woman.

efb

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think some so called liberal people want everyone to think the same on all issues and have problems with people from the Iona Institute because it gives a different viewpoint, then they need to look down on the person with an opposing opinion.

If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.

If we live in a free society then people should be allowed to have different opinions without needing to put the person into a box.
If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.

Silenced like Walters, O'Brien, Quinn and Casey silenced Rory O'Neill's view on RTE???

P_1

No

RobertKK wrote: »

If everyone can marry what sex they want, then surely traditional marriage is destroyed by it, given marriage was only between a man and a woman.

IMO marriage is just a tax break these days.

Vast generalism alert

amdublin

No

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZzFsE4Aw9bs&sa=U&ei=BmLlUpbGCcbH7AboxICgAg&ved=0CCQQtwIwAQ&sig2=eaE04jYkWxeFnwUTvACqvQ&usg=AFQjCNE7vJPI7veO4juF_XsDNKCqCrh9cg

20Cent

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think some so called liberal people want everyone to think the same on all issues and have problems with people from the Iona Institute because it gives a different viewpoint, then they need to look down on the person with an opposing opinion.

If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.

If we live in a free society then people should be allowed to have different opinions without needing to put the person into a box.
If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.

The only opinion being silenced was Rory O'Neills by the Iona institute.
They will say the most horrible things about gay people but if anyone says boo to them they run to their lawyers.

AerynSun

No

RobertKK wrote: »

If people view marriage as something between a man and a woman or a best place for a child is with parents who are male and female, it is an opinion that is not homophobic, but for some it is homophobic as they have a different opinion and can't understand why someone doesn't want change.

Therein lies the problem: if you dig a little deeper into WHY people believe marriage is something between a man and a woman and the best place for a child with a male and female parent.... that's where you'll find the homophobia. It's not about suppressing people's right to speak their mind or have an opinion... but if the opinion is based on the irrational fear/dislike of something.... then that opinion IS homophobic. And sure, people are allowed to hold homophobic opinions, but then people are also allowed to point that out.

WHY should marriage not be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
WHY is the best place for a child in a family that has a mommy and a daddy - rather than in a family with two loving parents?

Dig a little deeper. And please don't come back with "Because God said so".

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

Silenced like Walters, O'Brien, Quinn and Casey silenced Rory O'Neill's view on RTE???

None of them are given a free slot to promote their views like Olivia O'Leary is on RTE.

Had a chat on twitter with a well know person in RTE, said it is hard to find people who want to come on the shows.

I wouldn't if asked. all one would get is abuse, for example David Quinn got death threats at one point.

Daith

No

RobertKK wrote: »

If each side allows free speech, then there is no problem. Some would rather those whose opinion they don't like was silenced, which would be a backward step.

So are you saying that Iona should have debated with Rory rather that resort to the backward step of silencing him (or attempting to) with solicitor letters?

I think that's the first time I'd ever agree with you....

drunkmonkey

Links234 wrote: »

Calling marriage equality "The destruction of traditional marriage" is a pretty homophobic thing to say though.

You mis read me it and took a cheap shot for some thanks. These threads always go the same way. There completely lob sided.
Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.

Daith

No

RobertKK wrote: »

None of them are given a free slot to promote their views like Olivia O'Leary is on RTE.

David Quinn writes for the Irish Independent. He has his own outlet. I don't get your point?

Billy86

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't agree someone wanting to protect marriage (family environment) is being homophobic. Being not pro the destruction of traditional marriage does not make you a gay hater, or scared of gays.
I can completely understand why people will fight to keep it as it is.

Racisms and Pro Marriage can't be really thrown together as easy as your doing it.

How would you define 'traditional'? There are examples or gay unions from hundreds and even thousands of years ago - some just a 'secondary relationship' to others being strongly bound, celebrated and ritualised unions, and even marriages themselves.

The idea of 'traditional marriage' or 'what marriage was supposed to be' is a bit of a farce to be honest, given that the concept well out dates any recorded history.

_Redzer_

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You mis read me it and took a cheap shot for some thanks. These threads always go the same way. There completely lob sided.
Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.

It does if you actually think that nonsense. Gay marriage opens up gay marriage. That's all. End of

20Cent

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You mis read me it and took a cheap shot for some thanks. These threads always go the same way. There completely lob sided.
Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.

Who wants to do that?

AerynSun

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.

Okay, maybe you can help me understand this a little better. WHY do you disagree with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable? What would be so bad and wrong about doing that? What would break/fall apart/change in such a terrible way as a result of doing that?

Daith

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Disagreeing with opening marriage to every kind of sexual relationship imaginable does not make you homophobic.

Disagreeing is fine

“This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality"

Stuff like the above is hardly just disagreeing though....

padd b1975

efb wrote: »

Nobody here is challenging their right to air their views, but people have a right to challenge them. Like the BNP are racist and should be exposed and identified as such.

Yes, by all means challenge it.

Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.

RobertKK

AerynSun wrote: »

Therein lies the problem: if you dig a little deeper into WHY people believe marriage is something between a man and a woman and the best place for a child with a male and female parent.... that's where you'll find the homophobia. It's not about suppressing people's right to speak their mind or have an opinion... but if the opinion is based on the irrational fear/dislike of something.... then that opinion IS homophobic. And sure, people are allowed to hold homophobic opinions, but then people are also allowed to point that out.

WHY should marriage not be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
WHY is the best place for a child in a family that has a mommy and a daddy - rather than in a family with two loving parents?

Dig a little deeper. And please don't come back with "Because God said so".

Why can't a person marry as many people as they want?

Marriage can be defined to mean anything. It doesn't change that for centuries and longer it was between a man and a woman.

Redefine marriage if you want, but then why stop at just same sex marriage?

AerynSun

No

padd b1975 wrote: »

Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.

But screaming homophobia over homophobia is quite justified.

Diminishing the concern by saying the 'gay lobby' is 'just being silly' is a nice side-step to avoid having to really look at the concern.

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

David Quinn writes for the Irish Independent. He has his own outlet. I don't get your point?

Are you forced to have to pay a licence fee for the Irish independent as one is for RTE?

Daith

No

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes, by all means challenge it.

Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.

So is silencing other peoples opinions.

Daith

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you forced to have to pay a licence fee for the Irish independent as one is for RTE?

I don't get your point. There was nothing stopping Quinn going on the Saturday show and debating himself.

_Redzer_

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Why can't a person marry as many people as they want?

Marriage can be defined to mean anything. It doesn't change that for centuries and longer it was between a man and a woman.

Redefine marriage if you want, but then why stop at just same sex marriage?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it then and take it into consideration in it's own right. But until then there's not been one single logical or rational reason to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying.

And same sex marriage has existed for as long as 'traditional marriage' has. It wasn't until organised religions which all pretty much derived from the same source came along that it was suddenly all about the male/female marriage.