Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

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.

RayM

No

Yes, they're homophobic. Pretty much everything that guy on the Saturday Night Show said about them (and John Waters) was accurate. It seems weird that people who usually object to 'political correctness' are so keen for everyone to pussyfoot around on this issue, rather than just calling a spade a spade.

Of course the Iona Institute (and similar homophobic groups and individuals) shouldn't be silenced, but they never have been. If anything, they get a disproportionately large amount of media coverage. Week in, week out, the likes of David Quinn, Breda O'Brien and John Waters all get paid by national newspapers to to express the kind of views that they claim nobody is allowed to express nowadays.

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?

That is a silly, silly post.

"If you redefine it to include same-sex couples, aren’t you effectively opening the doors to polygamy?"

"Perhaps people should be allowed to marry their pets too?"

Well, around a century ago, you almost definitely would have heard similarly illogical and idiotic arguments from those opposed to female suffrage...

"Well, if you’re going to allow women to vote, aren’t you effectively also extending the franchise to children? Perhaps hamsters should be allowed to vote too."

Frank Lee Midere

Billy86 wrote: »

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.

What societies allowed homosexual marriages? Genuine question.

MagicMarker

No

If you want to deny people equal rights because they are gay then you are a homophobe.

Pretty simple really.

eviltwin

No

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

What societies allowed homosexual marriages? Genuine question.

It's now legal in many countries, the world hasn't caved in. Go figure.

RobertKK

RayM wrote: »

Yes, they're homophobic. Pretty much everything that guy on the Saturday Night Show said about them (and John Waters) was accurate. It seems weird that people who usually object to 'political correctness' are so keen for everyone to pussyfoot around on this issue, rather than just calling a spade a spade.

Of course the Iona Institute (and similar homophobic groups and individuals) shouldn't be silenced, but they never have been. If anything, they get a disproportionately large amount of media coverage. Week in, week out, the likes of David Quinn, Breda O'Brien and John Waters all get paid by national newspapers to to express the kind of views that they claim nobody is allowed to express nowadays.



That is a silly, silly post.

"If you redefine it to include same-sex couples, aren’t you effectively opening the doors to polygamy?"

"Perhaps people should be allowed to marry their pets too?"

Well, around a century ago, you almost definitely would have heard similarly illogical and idiotic arguments from those opposed to female suffrage...

"Well, if you’re going to allow women to vote, aren’t you effectively also extending the franchise to children? Perhaps hamsters should be allowed to vote too."

That is a silly post.

There I said it too, it must mean it is fact.

padd b1975

Daith wrote: »

So is silencing other peoples opinions.

Ahem.....

Yes, by all means challenge it

All opinions are welcome in my view.

AerynSun

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?

There are a lot of people in Utah who do marry multiple partners. No biggie. I don't have a problem with people marrying multiple people as long as all of the partners are in agreement about it.

For centuries marriage was a patriarchal construct that bound the woman to the man, she as his property. I like to think we've come a long way as a society, that women are no longer considered extensions of the male's public existence.

If people want to get married, let 'em at it.

And if we shouldn't stop at same-sex marriage, what other kinds of partnerships are you proposing would benefit from access to formal marriage status?

Frank Lee Midere

RayM wrote: »

Yes, they're homophobic. Pretty much everything that guy on the Saturday Night Show said about them (and John Waters) was accurate. It seems weird that people who usually object to 'political correctness' are so keen for everyone to pussyfoot around on this issue, rather than just calling a spade a spade.

Of course the Iona Institute (and similar homophobic groups and individuals) shouldn't be silenced, but they never have been. If anything, they get a disproportionately large amount of media coverage. Week in, week out, the likes of David Quinn, Breda O'Brien and John Waters all get paid by national newspapers to to express the kind of views that they claim nobody is allowed to express nowadays.



That is a silly, silly post.

"If you redefine it to include same-sex couples, aren’t you effectively opening the doors to polygamy?"

"Perhaps people should be allowed to marry their pets too?"

Well, around a century ago, you almost definitely would have heard similarly illogical and idiotic arguments from those opposed to female suffrage...

"Well, if you’re going to allow women to vote, aren’t you effectively also extending the franchise to children? Perhaps hamsters should be allowed to vote too."

Actually there is some logic to the polygamy argument. If marriage is not between a man and a woman, why should it be between A man and A woman, but many. Particularly since Polygamy is historically fairly common.

efb

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

And sure he was quick to tell the media. Was it reported to the Gardai?

They seem to be very adapt at getting in on RTE programmes sometimes two on the panel

Frank Lee Midere

eviltwin wrote: »

It's now legal in many countries, the world hasn't caved in. Go figure.

That's not what I asked. Read what I asked and answer that question.