Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

david75

No

Sorry to wander off topic but is it true Breda O Brien is a religion teacher in a secondary school? And of so how do we know she isn't pushing her agenda there and have any parents objected?
That sounds really drastic and I don't mean it to. Just I heard this tonight and I think it can't be true.

Femme_Fatale

She claims to be a feminist too. Must cause somersaulting of the brains of homophobes who hate feminists. :pac:

alaimacerc

BO'B is a feminist purely in the sense of, "as a feminist, I'm deeply opposed to any form of legalised abortion. And any sort of feminism."

Bannasidhe

No

alaimacerc wrote: »

BO'B is a feminist purely in the sense of, "as a feminist, I'm deeply opposed to any form of legalised abortion. And any sort of feminism."

feminism+


:eek:

alaimacerc

david75 wrote: »

Sorry to wander off topic but is it true Breda O Brien is a religion teacher in a secondary school?

Religion and English, apparently.

And of so how do we know she isn't pushing her agenda there and have any parents objected?

She's teaching religion in a RCC "ethos" school. Her agenda is more or less "shut up and do what the church tells you". So isn't that exactly what she's being paid to do?

Of course, it's possible I might have the wrong BO'B.

ratemyteachers.com wrote:

Forces her opinions on others, and won't tolerate the idea that she's wrong. Seems to think that everyone's business is her own.

Well, theoretically possible.

Turtwig

alaimacerc wrote: »

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".

A racist will never admit they're racist and will be personally insulted at such an insinuation. The same goes for homophobes or bigots of any kind really. People with good intentions for society often do really nasty things without even realising it.

floggg

No

Jernal wrote: »

A racist will never admit they're racist and will be personally insulted at such an insinuation. The same goes for homophobes or bigots of any kind really. People claiming to have good intentions for society often do really nasty things without even realising it.

FYP

lyda

No

Jernal wrote: »

A racist will never admit they're racist and will be personally insulted at such an insinuation. The same goes for homophobes or bigots of any kind really. People with good intentions for society often do really nasty things without even realising it.

Some racists and homophobes and antisemites are more than happy to tell you they are those things and will merrily launch into why they hate the people they hate. I used to really dislike people like that.

Now I'm not a huge fan but at least appreciate their honesty. Straight-up in your face bigotry is awful, yes, but it's honest. You know where you stand.

It's this sneaky, stealthy, nod and a wink bigotry I loath now. It's not just morally reprehensible, it's cowardly.

mariaalice

Nobody had answered the question of why they are give so much credence, their opinion is about as valid or invalid as mine or any one else's, what they say is just their opinion it has no legal authority, they are not an organ of the state, the have no real influence.

lyda

No

mariaalice wrote: »

Nobody had answered the question of why they are give so much credence, their opinion is about as valid or invalid as mine or any one else's, what they say is just their opinion it has no legal authority, they are not an organ of the state, the have no real influence.

Why does a conservative Catholic organisation have lots of media access?

Total mystery.

mariaalice

lyda wrote: »

Why does a conservative Catholic organisation have lots of media access?

Total mystery.

That's kina my point it is not a vast conspiracy theory despite what people like to think, they have media accesses became the RCC have enough cop on not to comment every time the media is looking for a comment and as someone said the Iona crowd is always handy for a comment.

Its a mixture of laziness on the part of the media and a flailing around for a supposed balance report that have given the Iona institute more credence than they deserve.

Their prominence is being constructed and reinforced by "liberals" needing a bogey man and by a lazy, I need an instant comment media.

road_high

No

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

With friends like him who needs enemies eh...

This seems to be a favoured line of the anti-gay lobby these days "I've a friend who is gay and doesn't agree with gay marriage..."
What sort of friends actively campaigns that your relationship is seen by the state as a 2nd class type of relationship? It's just not a credible. Fair enough if these "gay friends" disagree with gay marriage themsleves, well don't bloody well get married. Stop using your opinion to try limit it for others that may want to.

alaimacerc

road_high wrote: »

What sort of friends actively campaigns that your relationship is seen by the state as a 2nd class type of relationship?

a) Paddy Manning;
b) Imaginary ones.

I think that's an excellent first approximation, if I do say so myself.

Fair enough if these "gay friends" disagree with gay marriage themsleves, well don't bloody well get married. Stop using your opinion to try limit it for others that may want to.

I think many gay people are indeed apathetic about SSM for themselves. Some are indeed ideologically hostile to it. But the prevalence of gay people who are opposed to the idea of lesser legal status for gay people in this area is surely vastly lower in fact that in "some of my numerous gay friends..." self-serving anecdote.

efb

No

Over 1/2 a million views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0

amdublin

No

Photo's on Panti's fb page

John Hurt holding Team Panti bumper sticker
Armistead Maupin holding Team Panti badge

Piliger

No

lyda wrote: »

Why does a conservative Catholic organisation have lots of media access?

Total mystery.

Because they have people in positions that matter. It's the only reason.

FouxDaFaFa

No

amdublin wrote: »

Photo's on Panti's fb page

John Hurt holding Team Panti bumper sticker
Armistead Maupin holding Team Panti badge

:D:D:D

I love his books. I must re-read Tales of the City.

BabysCoffee

No

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

:D:D:D

I love his books. I must re-read Tales of the City.

For sure Baby Cakes!!

Bannasidhe

No

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

:D:D:D

I love his books. I must re-read Tales of the City.

Hated Michael Tolliver Lives soooo much I haven't read the last two...

LookingFor

No

In case you were wondering what Iona is by its own definition, someone rummaged out their CRO filing. Some shocking revelations :O

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/02/17/the-iona-institute-exists-solely-to-advance-and-promote-the-christian-religion/

The Iona Institute creates the impression, on its website and in its media pronouncements, that it is a quasi-academic and objective think-tank, and that it promotes various causes on the basis that they are good for society.

For example, it claims to oppose same-sex marriage not on the basis of religious teachings, but on the basis of the benefit to children and society of encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their own children together.

In reality, the Iona Institute exists solely to advance and promote the Christian religion, and its social and moral values. That is how it describes its object in its memorandum of association lodged with the companies office.

Also, the Iona Institute has tax-exempt status in Ireland precisely because it exists to advance religion, which is one of the four categories of activity that enables charities to have tax-exempt status in Ireland.

The objects of the Company are listed in its Memorandum of Association.

1. The name of the Company is Lolek Limited.

2. The main object for which the Company is established is: The advancement and promotion of the Christian religion, its social and moral values, and the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of that object.

EuskalHerria

No

Another good article by Fintan O'Toole.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/gay-people-no-threat-to-a-robust-institution-1.1694878

"It is like one of those doomsday cults who have to live on after the world doesn’t end as predicted. Marriage was going to be destroyed by artificial contraception, by married women taking jobs, by divorce. But the damned institution won’t do its apocalyptic duty and die."

eorpach

Breda O'Brien has published another lament, this time for the Irish Catholic:

"...one of the main reasons that gay people want marriage rights is so that they can be registered as parents of children, either by adopting a partner’s children or by commissioning children..."

No fear whatsoever of homosexuals in that statement!! If she only actually read what she writes before complaining about an "obvious defamation"...

Everybody is blamed in that article, except herself and her lawyer. Extraordinary stuff.

Piliger

No

eorpach wrote: »

Breda O'Brien has published another lament, this time for the Irish Catholic:

"...one of the main reasons that gay people want marriage rights is so that they can be registered as parents of children, either by adopting a partner’s children or by commissioning children..."

No fear whatsoever of homosexuals in that statement!! If she only actually read what she writes before complaining about an "obvious defamation"...

Everybody is blamed in that article, except herself and her lawyer. Extraordinary stuff.

The Irish Catholic, which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) is delivered free to my by door to door people, CORRECTION: That appears to be the "Alive" publication: is a disgusting publication. I have looked through issues over the last year before I bin it and it carries the most appalling hate articles against Atheists and homosexual people, this one being the latest.

Re actual article quoted above ..
How on earth can someone with prejudices like this have 'a good name' ?

Annasopra

No

Piliger wrote: »

The Irish Catholic, which I believe (correct me if I am wrong) is delivered free to my by door to door people, is a disgusting publication. I have looked through issues over the last year before I bin it and it carries the most appalling hate articles against Atheists and homosexual people, this one being the latest.

How on earth can someone with prejudices like this have 'a good name' ?

I think you are mistaking Alive with the Irish Catholic. Alive is delivered door to door free and has a far right political agenda. The Irish Catholic is slightly more moderate and is sold in shops and churches.

Piliger

No

mango salsa wrote: »

I think you are mistaking Alive with the Irish Catholic. Alive is delivered door to door free and has a far right political agenda. The Irish Catholic is slightly more moderate and is sold in shops and churches.

Thank you - corrected above.

thehomeofDob

eorpach wrote: »

Breda O'Brien has published another lament, this time for the Irish Catholic:

"...one of the main reasons that gay people want marriage rights is so that they can be registered as parents of children, either by adopting a partner’s children or by commissioning children..."

No fear whatsoever of homosexuals in that statement!! If she only actually read what she writes before complaining about an "obvious defamation"...

Everybody is blamed in that article, except herself and her lawyer. Extraordinary stuff.

Why is the word commissioning in bold?

Granted its a clinical term for what is happening, but it is accurate. You felt the need to leave out the rest of the sentence for some reason, can I assume as it would weaken your argument? Also, leaving out the fact that the author used the same term for straight couples seeking children by the same methods.

I have no opinion in this debate or debacle, but it grinds my gears when people miss quote to their own end.

iwantmydinner

thehomeofDob wrote: »

Why is the word commissioning in bold?

Granted its a clinical term for what is happening, but it is accurate. You felt the need to leave out the rest of the sentence for some reason, can I assume as it would weaken your argument? Also, leaving out the fact that the author used the same term for straight couples seeking children by the same methods.

I have no opinion in this debate or debacle, but it grinds my gears when people miss quote to their own end.

Are you having a laugh?

The end of the sentence is "...through surrogacy, and/or egg or sperm donation."

Nothing to see here.

eorpach

thehomeofDob wrote: »

Why is the word commissioning in bold?

Granted its a clinical term for what is happening, but it is accurate. You felt the need to leave out the rest of the sentence for some reason, can I assume as it would weaken your argument? Also, leaving out the fact that the author used the same term for straight couples seeking children by the same methods.

I have no opinion in this debate or debacle, but it grinds my gears when people miss quote to their own end.

Exactly what iwantmydinner said; thank you.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?

The end of the sentence is "...through surrogacy, and/or egg or sperm donation."

Nothing to see here.

@thehomeofDob:

There was no misquotation or attempt to strengthen my argument. I was merely highlighting the operative clause of the sentence in the interests of brevity; the rest of which was entirely superfluous.

However, for the benefit of the conspiracy theorist in you, I shall quote the paragraph in its entirety below:

"The focus was entirely whether the ‘accused’ were homophobic, with virtually no focus on the fact that one of the main reasons that gay people want marriage rights is so that they can be registered as parents of children, either by adopting a partner’s children or by commissioning children through surrogacy, and/or egg or sperm donation."

As to why I highlighted "commissioning"? :-

I was alluding to the term's use by the author as a provocative attempt to debase the relationship between a child and a parent where that child has not been conceived through traditional means. Whether, as a definition, it is factually accurate or not is really beside the point (although I disagree that it is accurate because a commission implies a transaction for profit); what is important is not that the author uses the word in relation to straight people also, but the fact that she uses it at all. In so doing she very nakedly diminishes alternative methods of human reproduction as being somehow lesser.

Also, whether she applies the term to infertile straight couples still does not validate the hostile manner in which she uses the term in the context of her point about homosexual parents in the paragraph quoted above. To put it another way, calling all black people criminals would not be any less racist were it to be followed up by a comment about "some" white people being criminals. Do you follow?

So, to summarise, I was emboldening the term "commissioning" because it is indicate of the author's fear of homosexuals as a societal group, and as "registered" parents, and indicates her innate homophobia (on the basis of how the author herself defines the term in the second paragraph of the article).

Given the above analysis, I hope you'll consider that her choice of headline and use of the term "obvious defamation" in relation to The Saturday Night Show are both ironic and derisory; and insult the intelligence of the ordinary person, who may have been called upon to sit on a High Court jury had she contested her accusation of defamation before a court of law.

alaimacerc

eorpach wrote: »

Breda O'Brien has published another lament, this time for the Irish Catholic:

Uh, that was vile, it really was.

The language of "rights" falls out of the mouths of the likes of BO'B very uncomfortably. She has "the right to her good name", even if that's incompatible with accurate fair comment on what she's saying. It's not clear that she's in any way able to conceptualise a "right to free speech" for other people. She appeals to the "rights" of children... and presumes to be the person both specifying those rights in detail, and how the state should exercise such rights on behalf of said child, in the necessary case of said child being in a position to exercise them themselves due to lack of capacity. (Cf the "right to life" of unicellular zygotes, one might be tempted to add.) Explicitly mocking any aspiration to equal parental and spousal rights as whining and entitled.

BO'B wrote:

The focus was entirely whether the ‘accused’ were homophobic

Well, fancy that. That being the matter you instructed your solicitors to take to law. Imagine people "focusing" on that.

alaimacerc

thehomeofDob wrote: »

Why is the word commissioning in bold?

Granted its a clinical term for what is happening

I think the description you're looking for is "snarl word".

but it is accurate.

Me arse. You and she presume to speak to a wide range of circumstances, and to sweepingly sit on judgement on them, without an ounce of humanity, empathy, decency or consideration.

Also, leaving out the fact that the author used the same term for straight couples seeking children by the same methods.

Well, praise the lord! So she's a full-service rights-denying compassion-free theocrat in her desire to see the catechism enshrined in law, rather than the cafeteria sort. Well, to a point. Do we see Lolek Ltd putting the same effort into criminalising IVF and surrogacy and denying parental rights to het people in similar circumstances? Do we heck.