Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

LookingFor

No

Honestly, had to stop around the 17 minute mark, when he started talking with a straight face about 'dogmas that are impervious to science', and that science was on the Church's side when it came to marriage etc.

Yeah, David, maybe science as misrepresented by your little think-tank ala at the constitutional convention...

Don't watch that video if you want to keep your blood pressure reasonable before bed time

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

"TERFs vs pretendbians"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To translate each into something closer to their preferred terminology:

Radical feminists who are transcritical/wish to maintain or establish women-born-as-women spaces;

Lesbian transwomen critical (in turn) of the first group.

alaimacerc

I'm still something in a fragile state from wading all the way through that JW transcript, not to mention the p*l*t*cs.** relapse that brought on... ("John Waters" and "stream of consciousness" is not a juxtaposition that should ever occur in textual form. Or at all.) So, I haven't listened to the BO'Bcast, and Have No Immediate Plans In That Area... *shudder!* So, apologies if meta-comment thereon is missing key context.

AngryHippie wrote: »

She then states that it is "unhealthy" for the catholic church to have its views enshrined in legislation.....

This sounds like the sort of "argument" one hears from "apologists" all the time. "Of course there should be separation of church and state," they say, "Just like we already have it! No bishop has their bum on a ministerial seat, and their hand directly on legislation and ministerial order. That money paid by the state to religious bodies isn't 'endowing' them: sure, it's only resting in my third-party trust entity."

Presumably, if the II just happens to "enshrine" 99.99% of the RCC's views, and legislation just happens to enshrine 99.99% of II's views, that's sufficient separation for BO'B's idea of a healthy civil society, and the amount of variance allowed more than ample evidence of their "freedom of conscience on moral issues", as the Reform Alliance jargon would have it.

AngryHippie

No

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm still something in a fragile state from wading all the way through that JW transcript, not to mention the p*l*t*cs.** relapse that brought on... ("John Waters" and "stream of consciousness" is not a juxtaposition that should ever occur in textual form. Or at all.) So, I haven't listened to the BO'Bcast, and Have No Immediate Plans In That Area... *shudder!* So, apologies if meta-comment thereon is missing key context.



This sounds like the sort of "argument" one hears from "apologists" all the time. "Of course there should be separation of church and state," they say, "Just like we already have it! No bishop has their bum on a ministerial seat, and their hand directly on legislation and ministerial order. That money paid by the state to religious bodies isn't 'endowing' them: sure, it's only resting in my third-party trust entity."

Presumably, if the II just happens to "enshrine" 99.99% of the RCC's views, and legislation just happens to enshrine 99.99% of II's views, that's sufficient separation for BO'B's idea of a healthy civil society, and the amount of variance allowed more than ample evidence of their "freedom of conscience on moral issues", as the Reform Alliance jargon would have it.

I agree with that you are saying here, but did she, or did she not just shoot her foot off ?

I really hope she retires from thinking and talking, they aren't her strong suits.

alaimacerc

AngryHippie wrote: »

I agree with that you are saying here, but did she, or did she not just shoot her foot off ?

Logically, yes. But I have to acknowledge my own biases, and admit that I can't extrapolate from that to how it'll "play" with its intended audience. That I've heard others trotting out similar "arguments" suggests to me that it will have some people convinced.

It's basically a fallacy-of-the-golden-mean argument. One hypothesises some "extra-theocratic" position, juxtaposes it with "dangerously radical extreme secularism", in order to claim to be presenting some moderate and reason compromise.

I really hope she retires from thinking and talking, they aren't her strong suits.

I'm torn. If she continues, she may continue to bring the "no" side into disrepute. On the other hand, if she stops, I won't be exposed to quite so much of this nonsense...

AngryHippie

No

Just another point, for those who have been so pedantic about the definitions of Homophobia,

She stated, she is afraid of how this will all end up.....irrational fear or hatred was the definition of the word......

Did she just call herself homophobic?

Is that the ultimate own goal ?

When can RTE expect their cheque for 85k back ?

floggg

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 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,
....

Again, extremely disingenuous of him to write in defending Breda O'Brien without disclosing that she is his mother and therefore he may have a vested interest.

I know if my mother was involved I could not be impartial on an issue.

Also, the attempt to equate homophobic beatings or assaults with his experiences as a scrawny catholic is a fairly overt attempt at downplaying homophobia and it's effects.

While it would be terrible if he was bullied as a kid, I doubt he's ever been jumped on the way out of mass or had to check his Catholicism or scrawniness at a traffic lights as a grown man.

Lou.m

No

AngryHippie wrote: »

I'm just listening to Breda O's Soundcloud interview on the IT site now,

I'm having a starship troopers moment here, where Neil Patrick Harris proclaims that the Big Slug bug is "Afraid".

So Iona are scared about where this debate is going.

She then sidetracks the debate into an emotional plea about genealogy.

I really fear for her emotional state, and her connection to the reality of the world she lives in. I believe this discussion is shattering her concept of society.

Does this mean that society is "wrong" or that she is the one that does not fit rather than the LGBT community ?

She comes across as delusional, and thank you very much Hugh Linehan for calling her on it every time she threw up the genealogical straw man, and dragging her back into the discussion of employment, education, schools and marriage.

She decided to "deal" with these topics one by one, and then fell on her face.

Nice of her to sidestep JW's diatribe...

She then states that it is "unhealthy" for the catholic church to have its views enshrined in legislation.....Thereby sitting on her own hand grenade. Debate over. The only grounds for denying LGBT full rights to SSM are discriminatory religious hodge-podge, so if it's agreed that it is unhealthy to bring that view into legislation, game over, permission granted.

Apology issued by RTE and Dail Eireann, and a massive win for civil rights please.......


Personal message to Breda, if she is reading:
The "path" you have chosen in life, is to interfere in others lives.
You aren't in any danger, not from me at very least, and while your views are valid as personal views, once you take a public forum and disseminate views that interfere in other's lives, you expose yourself to exactly what has happened. You should take your own advice, and keep in mind that there are people behind the discussions.
Take care, and don't lose any sleep over this, the outcome will not affect YOUR life in any way.

God Bless.

Anita Bryant

Anita Bryant was a beauty queen in the 70's then she racked up many hit songs.

She became a christian Icon and made fighting the gays and trying to spread the ideology that all gays molest children. She fought all laws protecting gay rights. She was vitriolic and disgusting.

And the gay community simply united with fire in their bellies against her.

It rallied them.

People seem to forget in the right. It is the LGBT community all of us together in this and it is not just an idea it is our rights.

She made the phrase 'the Anita Bryant affect ' http://theoutmost.com/opinion/the-anita-bryant-effect/

If we can learn anything from the history of gay rights, it’s that The Iona Institute and John Waters have just woken a sleeping giant, says Rob Buchanan.

It seems the only thing Bryant loved more than fundamentalist Christianity and discrimination against gays, was money. She was the spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission (a nationwide ad campaign featured her singing ‘Come to the Florida Sunshine Tree’), and she appeared in ads for Coca-Cola, several Kraft Food products, and Holiday Inns. Her connections to these products would prove important to her downfall.

In 1977 Florida passed an ordinance preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Bryant began a crusade against this, cryptically calling it Save Our Children. She explicitly tied homosexuality to child abuse, much as Putin’s regime has today. One of her hateful slogans was: “Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children”.

The fact that a former close friend of Bryant called Ruth Shack, whom she had fallen out, had championed Florida’s initial anti-discrimination ordinance added venom to the whole nasty campaign. In the short term Bryant’s willful misinformation proved successful, whipping up moral panic and extremism, and the anti-discrimination ordinance was repealed. However it was a pyrrhic victory.

Rather than destroying the resolve of the gay civil rights lobby, Bryant succeeded only in outraging ordinary, decent people who otherwise would have been neutral or ignorant to the cause of gay rights. Boycotts of products she endorsed were organised and as their profits for plummeted, especially orange juice used in many gay bars, Bryant’s funding began to dry up.

People from other discriminated against minorities found fraternity in the gay rights fight, and most importantly (and paradoxically), Bryant galvanised the gay community, stirring them in to mass action.

Harvey Milk was one of those she spurred to enter politics at the time.

Bryant’s campaign stirred up a sleeping giant of the gay lobby. Her bigotry served only to show how noble and right the gay cause was, by comparison. She created a soapbox for the gays and put our cause centre stage.

We have the Iona institute to thank for rallying the LGBT community.

But even they are human and humans are frail we all share the frailty of humanity. And emotionally that hatred is hard to live in the world with and be healthy. I fear for the people who live like that it must be a frightening world and it must be isolating. I would never wish for the physiological pain of anyone. Not even the Iona institute.

But I wish they could see the pain that others have gone through. Not only LGBT but everyone who has suffered under the rule of the far right boot in face morality. From gays to single moms to people who have abortions or use contraception or people of other races or creeds.

I don't wish pain even to the enemy.

Anita Bryant suffered a mental breakdown and became suicidal and an alcoholic.

El Weirdo

No

floggg wrote: »

While it would be terrible if he was bullied as a kid, I doubt he's ever been jumped on the way out of mass or had to check his Catholicism or scrawniness at a traffic lights as a grown man.

Oh, I doubt Brendan has ever checked his catholicism, whether at traffic lights or not.

Annasopra

No

Made a mistake. Brendan is her husband. Bennis her Son.

Lou.m

No

Still as much as I don't agree with them I don't want anything bad to happen to them they are human.

Links234

No

Lou.m wrote: »

Still as much as I don't agree with them I don't want anything bad to happen to them they are human.

The only thing I'd ever want to happen to them, is for them to cop on to themselves.

Links234

No

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm told he also has some wonderfully nice things to say about transgender people later in the video...

I watched the video up until that point, what can I say other than I'm a sucker for punishment? But he mentions that Ireland's going to bring in legislature that will allow trans people to change their birthcerts and their passports, and according to Dave, this wouldn't require any surgery and it wouldn't even require any hormone treatment, it's just "whatever I say it is". Well, he's wrong on two counts there. The proposed legislature is not only incredibly restrictive in that it does have all these requirements, but it also requires a person who is married to divorce before they can even apply for gender recognition. The second thing he's wrong about, is that we already can change our passports, I should know I've got an F on mine (If I knew it was gonna be a test I would've tried harder!)

Somehow society didn't collapse because I got a passport.

Knasher

No

Links234 wrote: »

The proposed legislature is not only incredibly restrictive in that it does have all these requirements, but it also requires a person who is married to divorce before they can even apply for gender recognition.

I assume the motivation for that is because SSM is currently illegal. So if the constitutional referendum passes will that change?

Zubeneschamali

No

Links234 wrote: »

The proposed legislature is not only incredibly restrictive in that it does have all these requirements, but it also requires a person who is married to divorce before they can even apply for gender recognition.

I heard a spokesman from TENI on the Radio news the other day (after the Amnesty report came out) saying they were hopeful that these requirements would be dropped before the bill comes up for a vote.

Is the marriage issue there because there is no same-sex marriage in law? If so, then there is one obvious fix!

Annasopra

No

Knasher wrote: »

I assume the motivation for that is because SSM is currently illegal. So if the constitutional referendum passes will that change?

Probably but let's step back and think about this for a minute

Man marries woman - man comes out as trans male to female. The couple stay together and wish to stay married. In order to have her true identity legallly recognised the state forces them to legally separate for four years and then divorce. Despite the fact that the constitution says it shall protect marriage against attack in this case it is directly attacking this couples marriage.

Bannasidhe

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Probably but let's step back and think about this for a minute

Man marries woman - man comes out as trans male to female. The couple stay together and wish to stay married. In order to have her true identity legallly recognised the state forces them to legally separate for four years and then divorce. Despite the fact that the constitution says it shall protect marriage against attack in this case it is directly attacking this couples marriage.

This happened to friends of mine.

Annasopra

No

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I heard a spokesman from TENI on the Radio news the other day (after the Amnesty report came out) saying they were hopeful that these requirements would be dropped before the bill comes up for a vote.

Is the marriage issue there because there is no same-sex marriage in law? If so, then there is one obvious fix!

It's complicated - whatever they do there will be a constitutional difficulty. The Minister doesn't want to bring in forced divorce but the Attorney general seems to be saying there is no option.

Zubeneschamali

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Man marries woman - man comes out as trans male to female. The couple stay together and wish to stay married. In order to have her true identity legallly recognised the state forces them to legally separate for four years and then divorce. Despite the fact that the constitution says it shall protect marriage against attack in this case it is directly attacking this couples marriage.

Well, yes, but not necessarily because the people who drafted the law want to. This is just one example of the general discrimination against same-sex couples.

Annasopra

No

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes, but not necessarily because the people who drafted the law want to...

huh? want to what?

This is just one example of the general discrimination against same-sex couples.

It's not law yet so we don't know if it is or not

floggg

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Probably but let's step back and think about this for a minute

Man marries woman - man comes out as trans male to female. The couple stay together and wish to stay married. In order to have her true identity legallly recognised the state forces them to legally separate for four years and then divorce. Despite the fact that the constitution says it shall protect marriage against attack in this case it is directly attacking this couples marriage.

I disagree with the requirement from a moral perspective, but legally I don't actually see any other way for them to do it unless and until marriage equality becomes law.

Unless they were to annul the marriage and declare it void in such circumstances on the ground that both spouses were of the same sex at the time of marriage and thus were not capable of being married?

Same result really, and I don't know if having it annulled is better or worse than a divorce optically.

Annasopra

No

floggg wrote: »

I disagree with the requirement from a moral perspective, but legally I don't actually see any other way for them to do it unless and until marriage equality becomes law.

Unless they were to annul the marriage and declare it void in such circumstances on the ground that both spouses were of the same sex at the time of marriage and thus were not capable of being married?

Perhaps - Again I think it is legally arguable as Dr Fergus Ryan has suggested

http://humanrights.ie/children-and-the-law/ryan-on-gender-recognition-and-marriage/

maximoose

No

Quite amazing that almost 3 weeks on from when this poll started, after all the debating that has followed, the stacks of evidence backing up Iona's blatant homophobia and their continuing hole-digging efforts that there are still a few "No" votes trickling in each day.

Bannasidhe

No

I'm sad to say but I firmly believe that if one conducted an anonymous poll and asked if people supported mixed race marriages there would be a few no votes.

Corkfeen

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sad to say but I firmly believe that if one conducted an anonymous poll and asked if people supported mixed race marriages there would be a few no votes.

14% don't approve of it as of 2008,granted it's a gallup poll which aren't considered as reliable as they used to. Can actually think of a few boards posters that have voiced disdain in regards to it in the past. 4% approved of it in 1958,is it acceptable to say that the other 96% held racists views or is that unacceptable?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

Piliger

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sad to say but I firmly believe that if one conducted an anonymous poll and asked if people supported mixed race marriages there would be a few no votes.

No offence but if that saddens you, then you are in for a long and very sad life .... The human condition produces a significant percentage of prejudice, stupidity and lots of other negative conditions. It has always done so and will also do so. Is it sad ? yes ..but it is the way it is. This is why those with the benefit of enlightened and rational minds need to stand up and illuminate the world around us.

Zubeneschamali

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Perhaps - Again I think it is legally arguable as Dr Fergus Ryan has suggested

http://humanrights.ie/children-and-the-law/ryan-on-gender-recognition-and-marriage/

He has a point.

Bannasidhe

No

Piliger wrote: »

No offence but if that saddens you, then you are in for a long and very sad life .... The human condition produces a significant percentage of prejudice, stupidity and lots of other negative conditions. It has always done so and will also do so. Is it sad ? yes ..but it is the way it is. This is why those with the benefit of enlightened and rational minds need to stand up and illuminate the world around us.

Why do you seem to think I am about 12?

I have boots older than 12.

Nor am I under any illusions about the human condition particularly as I have just finished reading a document from 1586 where those who participated in a massacre of 3000 people are complaining their arms were never so tired from killing as on that day and then casually mention how after all the men were dead they killed the woman and children and decapitated all the bodies. This happened in Mayo by the way.

I am saddened that people can still be so pig ignorant. Not surprised. Saddened.

alaimacerc

maximoose wrote: »

Quite amazing that almost 3 weeks on from when this poll started, after all the debating that has followed, the stacks of evidence backing up Iona's blatant homophobia and their continuing hole-digging efforts that there are still a few "No" votes trickling in each day.

Far from amazed here. Let's suppose 20%-40% of the population think SSM is wrong, and II are correct on this. They have a self-justification cognitive bias against recognising any of the foregoing as "homophobia". That might require them to consider and examine the possibility that they themselves might have views and sentiments that might in some ways be "homophobic".

alaimacerc

floggg wrote: »

Again, extremely disingenuous of him to write in defending Breda O'Brien without disclosing that she is his mother and therefore he may have a vested interest.

When the son was on Prime Time, he too seemed very reluctant to identify any connection, and had to be prompted a couple of times to do so. As opposed to his "some of my gay friends" lines, that he was very keen to feed in as prominently as possible.

Funny, that.