Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

AerynSun

No

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Who said the Church is only for people who never ever sin?I've never heard a Catholic saying that.
Sure that's what we have confession for.
The Church, like every other Club is full of members who are, at the end of the day, only human. Sinners, hypocrites snobs and bigots.
The LGBT community is full of sinners snobs hypocrites and bigots too. Not too christian some of them either.
I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
People get the cold shoulder from other club members for all sorts of reasons. Marital infidelity, stealing lying cheating domestic abuse. The list goes on and on. Its not just for being gay.
People who have left their marriage and are now living with someone else could say they are equally persecuted by the club rules.
LGBT don't have the exclusive rights to griping here.

LGBT people never claimed exclusive rights to griping about the Church. It just worries me personally that in my experience people are far more willing to overlook other people's sins, while getting stuck on the LGBT people's 'sin'.

You're right though, that the business of giving people the cold shoulder in Church is far more widespread than it should be in a 'club' where the rule book says "Don't judge lest ye be judged". What's the deal with that? And why is it that the clergy do seem to be wrapped up in sanctioning a lot of the sanctions? for e.g. Fr Bob was over for a cuppa and Mrs Joe was telling him about your woman down the road, and instead of Fr Bob gently reminding Mrs Joe that we're all sinners, Fr Bob agrees wholeheartedly and adds to the gossip while insisting that Mrs Joe shouldn't repeat any of the details. The minute Fr Bob leaves the house... Mrs Joe is onto her BFF to spill the beans. Happens far more often than it should.

PopePalpatine

No

fran17 wrote: »

so now that abortion is in you've moved onto homosexuality.you'll be defending paedophiles next you scurrilous dog.

No thanks, the Church has that market cornered. :pac:

JackF1

No

PopePalpatine wrote: »

No thanks, the Church has that market cornered. :pac:

Am I the only one who is entirely uncomfortable with the words Paedophile and Homosexual constantly appearing in the same sentence.

returnNull

No

JackF1 wrote: »

Am I the only one who is entirely uncomfortable with the words Paedophile and Homosexual constantly appearing in the same sentence.

thats about the level of debate you get used to from bigots...

JackF1

No

returnNull wrote: »

thats about the level of debate you get used to from bigots...

The issue I discover is when this is listened to my the uninformed and taken as fact.
I am 100% not a peadophile. I do however enjoy carnal knowledge of the same sex and that is simply my orientation

Annasopra

No

JackF1 wrote: »

The issue I discover is when this is listened to my the uninformed and taken as fact.
I am 100% not a peadophile. I do however enjoy carnal knowledge of the same sex and that is simply my orientation

I think most people nowadays are educated and don't equate the two

I Heart Internet

AerynSun wrote: »

Is the Church only for people who do not EVER sin? I'd say a pretty significant proportion of the membership should then seriously consider 'just retiring'. That's my take on it..

Absolutely not. That's a complete misunderstanding of what the church of about. The church is made up of sinners from top to bottom. The Pope is a sinner (as he says himself) and everyone else with him. We're all going to hell in a handbasket without the saving power of JC.

AerynSun wrote: »

I'm not sure how Christian it is for people to refuse to offer them the sign of peace... when sure aren't there loads of heterosexual people in that same Church who are doing all manner of sinful things that are just less noticeable because they're sitting next to partners of the opposite sex...

Not Christian at all would be my answer.

mcmoustache

No

mango salsa wrote: »

I think most people nowadays are educated and don't equate the two

That still doesn't stop dishonest and sometimes educated people trying to link the two.

Cabaal

No

mcmoustache wrote: »

That still doesn't stop dishonest and sometimes educated people trying to link the two.

Or the Russian government.....

P_1

No

mango salsa wrote: »

I think most people nowadays are educated and don't equate the two

Unfortunately that doesn't seem the case in Russia, but yes thankfully in Ireland and a good few other countries it is

cletus van damme

mcmoustache wrote: »

That still doesn't stop dishonest and sometimes educated people trying to link the two.

some people will always be twisted and full of hate , arguing about it is meaningless and only adds value to their rantings.

mango salsa wrote: »

I think most people nowadays are educated and don't equate the two

I liked your post.
first time for everything, i guess

Annasopra

No

mcmoustache wrote: »

That still doesn't stop dishonest and sometimes educated people trying to link the two.

Of course not but the answer to that is more education

El Weirdo

No

Great letter in the Irish Times today.

Piliger

No

JackF1 wrote: »

Am I the only one who is entirely uncomfortable with the words Paedophile and Homosexual constantly appearing in the same sentence.

Whether heterosexual or homosexual we should be OUTRAGED by this conflation.

iwantmydinner

I can't stop reading that letter. I want to shake her hand and buy her a drink.

manafana

No

the iona institue is homophobic, by definition myself am homophobic as i would have fully agree with same marriage rights and child parent rights for same sex couples

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

No thanks, the Church has that market cornered. :pac:

im pretty sure if someone of your character put your mind to it you could come up with a defence for it

Ghost Buster

No

fran17 wrote: »

im pretty sure if someone of your character put your mind to it you could come up with a defence for it

Can I ask if you, like I do, find the idea if engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same sex distasteful?

Piliger

No

manafana wrote: »

the iona institue is homophobic, by definition myself am homophobic as i would have fully agree with same marriage rights and child parent rights for same sex couples

The logic in that post seems decidedly dodgy .... :rolleyes:

efb

No

Team Panti tees all over Prime Time lolz

PopePalpatine

No

fran17 wrote: »

im pretty sure if someone of your character put your mind to it you could come up with a defence for it

Ooh, someone's butthurt. Write to Alive! about it. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

No

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ooh, someone's butthurt. Write to Alive! about it. :rolleyes:

I told him to stop using vaseline and get a water based lube.
Some people just won't listen like...

efb

No

Alive! Keep giving me their stupid newspaper I love when my cat sh!ts all over it!!!

LookingFor

No

So I'm listening to the Inside Politics podcast on the Irish Times website:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/inside-politics

Breda O'Brien is a guest. I'm listening to her almost break down in tears at the suggestion that she supports, among other things, gay people being fired from their jobs because of their sexuality.

So...er...shouldn't she ask Iona, the group she is a part of, what their Section 37 lobbying is all about? I.e. they are lobbying to maintain Section 37 and avoid tightening up of workplace discrimination against gay people in schools etc.

efb

No

LookingFor wrote: »

So I'm listening to the Inside Politics podcast on the Irish Times website:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/inside-politics

Breda O'Brien is a guest. I'm listening to her almost break down in tears at the suggestion that she supports, among other things, gay people being fired from their jobs because of their sexuality.

So...er...shouldn't she ask Iona, the group she is a part of, what their Section 37 lobbying is all about? I.e. they are lobbying to maintain Section 37 and avoid tightening up of workplace discrimination against gay people in schools etc.

Irony! (for Breda)

LookingFor

No

Oh, OK. She gets to this later. She thinks gay people should be protected from firing in Catholic schools as long as...

...well, actually, it wasn't very clear. She went on to talk about if a teacher in a Gaeltacht school starting openly pronouncing the superiority of teaching through english at every opportunity, should they be protected from being fired?

So I don't know. She thinks gay teachers are fine as long as they subscribe to some unspecified parameters of behaviour relating to the school's ethos.

She then said it wouldn't be OK to go into people's private lives e.g. obviously it wouldn't be OK if a lone parent was fired from a teaching job.

But then the interviewer interjected that this had actually happened.

Very confusing. I'm not sure she knows where she's at on that issue. I felt like she has some idea of how 'gay teachers should be' to avoid being fired but didn't want to specify what that meant. Whatever protection she thinks gay teachers should have, it would appear to be qualified.

The whole interview is actually a bit confusing. She keeps going off on completely unrelated tangents about adoption and surrogacy, tying them to the issue of gay marriage. As the host keeps saying, these issues have nothing to do specifically with gay marriage - issues of identity wrt adoption or surrogacy apply as much to straight couples as gay, but she claims they're 'inextricably linked' to gay marriage in some unspecified way.

Delirium

No

LookingFor wrote: »

So I'm listening to the Inside Politics podcast on the Irish Times website:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/inside-politics

Breda O'Brien is a guest. I'm listening to her almost break down in tears at the suggestion that she supports, among other things, gay people being fired from their jobs because of their sexuality.

So...er...shouldn't she ask Iona, the group she is a part of, what their Section 37 lobbying is all about? I.e. they are lobbying to maintain Section 37 and avoid tightening up of workplace discrimination against gay people in schools etc.

She says in the interview that as long as people live according to the ethos of the school they shouldn't be fired. Catholic ethos would mean a life of celibacy for any homosexual teachers. By extension it also condones firing unwed mothers.

Bannasidhe

No

SW wrote: »

She says in the interview that as long as people live according to the ethos of the school they shouldn't be fired. Catholic ethos would mean a life of celibacy for any homosexual teachers. By extension it also condones firing unwed mothers.

Or anyone who is divorced, using contraception, engaging in fornication or is pro-choice.

Here is a mad idea - every teacher who doesn't conform strictly to RCC ethos should be fired - that should leave them with about 5 teachers so they will have to shut up shop and the State will have no choice but to make direct provision for that compulsory education they insist on.

It's an idea in progress but we could be on to something...

Cabaal

No

SW wrote: »

She says in the interview that as long as people live according to the ethos of the school they shouldn't be fired. Catholic ethos would mean a life of celibacy for any homosexual teachers. By extension it also condones firing unwed mothers.

Also divorce is a no no,
So if your unhappily married you better stay that way or you'll be sacked. Also no condom talk either!

Daith

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or anyone who is divorced, using contraception, engaging in fornication or is pro-choice.

I honestly think that Breda thinks that gay teachers will arrive in one Monday morning and ask the class how they're weekend went. When a student asks the teacher he'll respond

"Great weekend, stole another child from a straight married couple and shagged a guy in the bum, now onto Macbeth".