Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Bannasidhe

No

Daith wrote: »

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".

Pity it's not Lear - could use the line about 'out vile (ky) jelly, where is thy luster now?'

efb

No

She has to parodying Helen Lovejoy at this stage...

efb

No

Daith wrote: »

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".

Alas, poor Yorick I "knew" him ... <nudge, nudge>

LookingFor

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.

Yeah, the host mentions just such a case, of a teacher who was a lone parent and was sacked. She said she didn't agree with that and hoped it was a thing of the past. Yet... she appears not to want any change on the law here. Confusing position IMO.

She was asked about the John Waters 'satire on marriage' comment. She said she didn't agree with it.

She completely dodged a question on whether opposition here is the latest iteration in a long line of opposition around 'family' and reproductive law going back to divorce, contraception etc. She didn't want to say, I guess, because I imagine she probably is anti-divorce, anti-contraception etc. and didn't want to color perception of her opposition to gay marriage now.

And finally, I had to laugh at her saying that she thought society shouldn't have to adopt Catholic ideas and that it was 'very unhealthy' when the Catholic Church was trying to impose Catholic ideas in legislation and public policy. Yet she is a member of a group that is doing a very good turn as its replacement in the arena today.

Daith

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pity it's not Lear - could use the line about 'out vile (ky) jelly, where is thy luster now?'

Nah Macbeth,

Is that a dagger I see before me?
No it's a cock.

Friend Computer

efb wrote: »

Alas, poor Yorick I "knew" him ... <nudge, nudge>

"[...]He hath borne me on his back a thousand times[...]Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft[...]"

Need I say more?

opinionated3

efb wrote: »

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

Why? ??

Corkfeen

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Why? ??

Because it's an extreme right piece of Catholic propaganda. Most of the clergy don't even take the thing seriously.

iwantmydinner

opinionated3 wrote: »

Why? ??

Three opinionated guesses :rolleyes:

opinionated3

Corkfeen wrote: »

Because it's an extreme right piece of Catholic propaganda. Most of the clergy don't even take the thing seriously.

Fair enough. .... Just thought people were attacking Catholics in this thread just for the fun of it.....

opinionated3

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Three opinionated guesses :rolleyes:

Iwantmydinner 2.....

Corkfeen

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Fair enough. .... Just thought people were attacking Catholics in this thread just for the fun of it.....

Criticising a publication is attacking Catholics?

opinionated3

Corkfeen wrote: »

Criticising a publication is attacking Catholics?

Depends on the publication doesn't it

marienbad

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Depends on the publication doesn't it

How so ???

Is attacking the ideas in say a Fianna Fail newsletter attacking the people in FF ?

Piliger

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Depends on the publication doesn't it

Not in my view. Attacking Catholic views and policies is another matter.

Ghost Buster

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Depends on the publication doesn't it

Well. I suppose if its a publication endorsed by and proporting to speak for all catholics everywhere then its an attack on catholics

rainbow kirby

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

Criticising a publication is attacking Catholics?

Alive is so far to the crazy side that it even seems nuts to most mainstream/moderate Catholics.

P_1

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Why? ??

Saves money on buying a paper for the cat to use I'd imagine...

:pac:

Zubeneschamali

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Depends on the publication doesn't it

Have you ever read an issue of Alive! ? It isn't pretty:

Why society defends marriage


The desire of men and women to give themselves to each other in a way that creates, or procreates, babies is one of the humdrum yet most wonderful things in the world.

And part of this desire is to nurture those babies in a loving home, and prepare them for life. This little community is the basic building block of society.

Admittedly, many people harm this most wonderful reality by their selfish irresponsibility. It is also damaged by widespread patterns of behaviour such as contraception, cohabitation, IVF and divorce.

I didn't know these fine people were anti-IVF.

Corkfeen

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Depends on the publication doesn't it

Here's two random quotes from an article in Alive last month on a Primetime segment. Fine journalism at work.

'The audience,of course contained the full range of dissident voices,gays,pro-abortionists, radical feminists and semi-radical clerics'

'Diarmuid Ferriter:Did he ever hear about the sacrament of confession?'

They primarily consist of homophobic writers who also deeply fear secularism as if it's the birth of the anti-Christ. The standard of content is abysmal and it's the equivalent of the Daily Mail in Catholic form. No actual calibre of journalism. They actually have segments dedicated to celebrating bigotry.

efb

No

opinionated3 wrote: »

Why? ??

Have you seen the bile in that rag???

Zubeneschamali

No

Odd - the Iona Institute has a page for newslinks, and runs the latest items on their front page. For example, from the 5th Feb:
Faith provides an answer to alienation and hopelessness says Archbishop Martin

But for some reason, they do not run any mention of this story, from RTE on the 9th:

Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin has said that some people in the Catholic Church may be homophobic.

Speaking on RTÉ's This Week, he said it was also possible that the teaching of the church could be used "in a homophobic way".

He said that the Church had to be very careful that in the forthcoming debate on the same sex referendum, that this was not done.

Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

Sarky

No

efb wrote: »

Have you seen the bile in that rag???

Would you say there's a *river* of bile in it?

Annasopra

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.

I know this is hypocritical of me given my earlier stance but I can't help pointing out her Sons letter today

Here's the letter:

Sir, – With almost no sense of self-examination or irony, people are joining the pack-like and personalised vilification of people like Breda O’Brien and David Quinn across virtually every media outlet. The case for infertile marriage is being presented as irrefutable dogma. The reputations of people who question this, irrespective of their reasoning, are being treated as if they were worth no more than “pig’s spit”, to quote a contributor to the online comment forum of this newspaper.
As someone, who like Jerry Buttimer, knows first hand the humiliation of being systematically spat at, intimidated and beaten (in my case because of my small size, my rural upbringing and my faith commitment) I abhor bullying in all its guises. Knowing that I will face the ostracisation that has been called for on RTÉ Radio 1 on Sunday morning, I want to say publicly that I intend to vote No to infertile marriage in the forthcoming referendum, not for any religious reasons, but because I believe there is a profound inequality at the heart of the proposal.
If a man and a woman, one of whom is infertile wish to bring a new life into the world they cannot do so without the intervention of at least one other adult. If the man is infertile they will require the assistance of a surrogate mother and possibly an egg from a fourth adult. If the woman is infertile they will require the donation of sperm from a man (who may be anonymous). In each case it will require the “commissioning” of a child (to use the language of Minister for Justice Alan Shatter’s Children & Family Relationships Bill) who will be sundered from either his or her mother or father, not because of tragic circumstances or the break-up of a relationship, but by an act of adult choice.
Our genetic heritage is as intrinsic a part of who we are as our fertility. To decide to sunder a child from that inheritance before she is even born is treating her in a radically unequal way. I believe that there is no right for an adult, fertile or infertile, to do that.

If we are to equate same-sex marriage with heterosexual marriage in our Constitution then we will have to pretend that we will not be treating some children in a profoundly different and unjust way. If pointing this out is what now constitutes homophobia then Humpty Dumpty is our King. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CONROY,
....

FouxDaFaFa

No

^^^^

Jesus Christ.

So he'll obviously be advocating mandatory fertility testing for couples wishing to marry and enforcing by law their commitment to have children?

Daith

No

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

^^^^

Jesus Christ.

So he'll obviously be advocating mandatory fertility testing for couples wishing to marry and enforcing by law their commitment to have children?

I also assume those couples who may not want to have children should get a divorce?

Nodin

No

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Have you ever read an issue of Alive! ? It isn't pretty:

Why society defends marriage


The desire of men and women to give themselves to each other in a way that creates, or procreates, babies is one of the humdrum yet most wonderful things in the world.

And part of this desire is to nurture those babies in a loving home, and prepare them for life. This little community is the basic building block of society.

Admittedly, many people harm this most wonderful reality by their selfish irresponsibility. It is also damaged by widespread patterns of behaviour such as contraception, cohabitation, IVF and divorce.

I didn't know these fine people were anti-IVF.

You should take the default that if its modern, doesn't involve rod A going in slot B, they're against it.

LookingFor

No

mango salsa wrote: »

I know this is hypocritical of me given my earlier stance but I can't help pointing out her Sons letter today

Here's the letter:

Sir, – With almost no sense of self-examination or irony, people are joining the pack-like and personalised vilification of people like Breda O’Brien and David Quinn across virtually every media outlet. The case for infertile marriage is being presented as irrefutable dogma. The reputations of people who question this, irrespective of their reasoning, are being treated as if they were worth no more than “pig’s spit”, to quote a contributor to the online comment forum of this newspaper.
As someone, who like Jerry Buttimer, knows first hand the humiliation of being systematically spat at, intimidated and beaten (in my case because of my small size, my rural upbringing and my faith commitment) I abhor bullying in all its guises. Knowing that I will face the ostracisation that has been called for on RTÉ Radio 1 on Sunday morning, I want to say publicly that I intend to vote No to infertile marriage in the forthcoming referendum, not for any religious reasons, but because I believe there is a profound inequality at the heart of the proposal.
If a man and a woman, one of whom is infertile wish to bring a new life into the world they cannot do so without the intervention of at least one other adult. If the man is infertile they will require the assistance of a surrogate mother and possibly an egg from a fourth adult. If the woman is infertile they will require the donation of sperm from a man (who may be anonymous). In each case it will require the “commissioning” of a child (to use the language of Minister for Justice Alan Shatter’s Children & Family Relationships Bill) who will be sundered from either his or her mother or father, not because of tragic circumstances or the break-up of a relationship, but by an act of adult choice.
Our genetic heritage is as intrinsic a part of who we are as our fertility. To decide to sunder a child from that inheritance before she is even born is treating her in a radically unequal way. I believe that there is no right for an adult, fertile or infertile, to do that.
If we are to equate infertile marriage with fertile marriage in our Constitution then we will have to pretend that we will not be treating some children in a profoundly different and unjust way. If pointing this out is what now constitutes infertilityphobia then Humpty Dumpty is our King. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CONROY,
....

I had to double-check because I could not believe this was a real letter.


edit - actually, the letter is there, but that's an edited version Mango! 'Infertile' and 'infertility' are not in the original text. I appreciate the point of whoever edited the letter, but still...presenting it as unedited makes the guy out to be a total fool in terms of how he presents his arguments.

He is of course being careful to ignore the 'straight married couples don't/can't have children too' issue, but he's not stupid enough to call their marriages out as invalid.

The letter does demonstrate the conflation of issues that Breda O'Brien was also engaging in on the IT podcast. The marriage referendum has nothing to do with surrogacy, but they seem very keen to tie them all together.

The apparent issues they have with adoption are also pretty nasty, IMO.

Nodin

No

LookingFor wrote: »

I had to double-check because I could not believe this was a real letter.

Drawing a line around marriage as it is now on the basis of fertility has to be one of the weakest, most assailable positions on this issue. I'd say Breda is a little embarrassed even! And a line of argument that will be a terrible turn off for the vast majority of people. What an insult to childless and infertile couples of all kinds, who are today married or wish to marry!

Or maybe not? Afterall, in her discussion in the IT podcast she was going on about children having a right to their mother and their father and the plight of adopted people finding their identities. By which I took it to mean she was generally against adoption, for example.

I'm kind of glad, though, if they're going to be honest about this stuff. Because the logical conclusion of Iona's opposition to gay marriage and their general position on family is that we should really get rid of marriage as it is right now and bring in a new contract that comes into effect between two people immediately and automatically upon the birth of a child conceived by them, and to also abolish adoption.

Now this could lead to some...m:m relationships (what under today's regime might be called polygamy). But so be it! We cannot have children being denied their rights to contractually bound biological parents afterall, and that overrides everything!

According to the church, acts that are not "procreative" are forbidden (you can give the bosoms a squeeze, but no manipulation to the point of orgasm), even within marriage. What you're seeing there is the mask slipping.

Bannasidhe

No

I may be storm affected but this is what I got from that:

Here's the letter:

Sir, – Leave my Mammy alone ye big bullies and I know what I am talking about because I was bullied like Jerry Gay TD and it's not funny and it's not clever except when my mammy and her friends do it.

Also marriage = babies and I am voting no to no babies.

BRENDAN CONROY,


What I cannot understand is why they insist on bringing it up again when even Panti is sick of the whole thing. After 3 weeks the panties have been dropped in favour of 'buggate' so now would be a good time for certain people to shut the uck up and hope everyone forgets and moves on.

But no........they seem determined to do a post-grad in PR Disaster.