Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

J_E

No

jank wrote: »

If one has an opinion that does not conform to the accepted D4 middle class Labour types than they must be a bigot, homophobe, hate women and eat babies for breakfast. "Intollarance will not be tolerated!!" is the mantra. Plenty of evidence for it here where mudslinging and name calling is the preferred modus operand of debate rather than actual debating.

Think you're exaggerating a bit to be honest. Intolerance won't be tolerated. Not anymore. Some of us are past the state of hiding and passiveness, we've been proven to be just as 'normal' as everyone else, now we have to beg for equal rights and still get trampled on ideologically on a daily basis by Iona, and many other groups and individuals.

It is so much easier to sit in the seat of a majority crowd and be able to judge...if you had to experience what it's like from this perspective on a daily basis you'd be just as frustrated and tired of it. I hope you can get it from that perspective at least. Yes, arguments resort to mudslinging (from both sides I may add) but for the most part, we're not shoving our sexuality in other people's faces like some would want you to believe. A dream would be able to just walk with someone down the park, not terrified of brushing off each other should anyone see, being given equal treatment should we decide to make a lifelong commitment (and yes, we actually are capable of that) and simply, have our own slice of happiness. I think for the most part, people here have defended their stance adequately - it is only when the people against run out of reasons or are disproven over and over that things start to derail.

Edit: fixed some mistakes

Maximus Alexander

No

whats the point wrote: »

Ahh big difference, if you call someone a racist or bigot it's to shut them up, rather than to listen to what the have to say.

Usually it's because you've already listened to what they have to say and it was racist or bigoted.

efb

No

http://www.dailymotion.com/radiator2

Links234

No

I'm away to bed, so enjoy some Kamelot folks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAL6nw2Ku-A

rainbow kirby

No

Links234 wrote: »

I'm away to bed, so enjoy some Kamelot folks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAL6nw2Ku-A

I like the way you think.

Sisko

No

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily = homophobia. There are people who don't believe in same-sex marriage due to viewing the institution of marriage as being only for a man and a woman, but don't have a problem with people being gay/civil partnerships.
There are no doubt people in the Iona Institute who disapprove of homosexuality though.

I disagree, its kinda like saying being opposed to black people being allowed to vote is not necessarily racist. Yes this hypothetical person might not hate blacks or have any other typical racist views towards them, but still having that position on their vote would still mean they hold a racist view on the position.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

No, jank, they're not homophobes for having a different opinion. they're homophobes because everything they say, write and do in the various media outlets demonstrably shows an irrational aversion to homosexuals. This has been pretty well documented in this and other threads, but I suppose it's easy to miss if you're not really looking so don't sweat it.

No, there's no need to thank me. It's reward enough knowing you won't make the same mistake again in future posts.

Thank you Sarky for proving my point. If one does not conform to your acceptable ideal of equality than one is a homophobe. That is exactly my point, where people define themselves the terms of reference and sling it about carelessly.

David Starkey doesn't fully favour gay marriage for example (he thinks it comes with the baggage of heterosexuality, why would gays want to burden themselves with that?), yet he is a homosexual atheist himself who fought for other gay rights all his life. Is he a self hating homophobe? The world isn't black and white where the champions of equality are battling the evils of conservatism, fighting the good fight the rest of us. How is the view from up there?

Kiwi in IE

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

It is so much easier to sit in the seat of a majority crowd and be able to judge...

I am not so sure that homophobic attitudes are the majority anymore (I like to think not anyway). Those who hang onto these views just seem to be particularly loud and publicly aggressive, in an attempt to make themselves feel more relevant than they actually are.

Kiwi in IE

No

At the end of the day who cares what Iona and the likes think about anything? They can preach religious ideals, hetero only marriage and parenthood, traditional gender roles (Tarzan go to work, Jane stay home) etc to their members all they like............................................while the rest of us carry on living in the real world where they are irrelevant.

Annasopra

No

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

At the end of the day who cares what Iona and the likes think about anything? They can preach religious ideals, hetero only marriage and parenthood, traditional gender roles (Tarzan go to work, Jane stay home) etc to their members all they like............................................while the rest of us carry on living in the real world where they are irrelevant.

They have almost unending access to mainstream media in RTE, Irish Times and Irish Independent.
The problem is because of that media access they are not irrelevant

J_E

No

Sisko wrote: »

I disagree, its kinda like saying being opposed to black people being allowed to vote is not necessarily racist. Yes this hypothetical person might not hate blacks or have any other typical racist views towards them, but still having that position on their vote would still mean they hold a racist view on the position.

Let's also remember a key point Rory made on the Saturday Night interview;

“Oh listen, the problem is with the word ‘homophobic’, people imagine that if you say “Oh he’s a homophobe” that he’s a horrible monster who goes around beating up gays you know that’s not the way it is. Homophobia can be very subtle. I mean it’s like the way you know racism is very subtle. I would say that every single person in the world is racist to some extent because that’s how we order the world in our minds. We group people. You know it’s just how our minds work so that’s okay but you need to be aware of your tendency towards racism and work against it[...]What it boils down to is if you’re going to argue that gay people need to be treated in any way differently than everybody else or should be in anyway less, or their relationships should be in anyway less then I’m sorry, yes you are a homophobe and the good thing to do is to sit, step back, recognise that you have some homophobic tendencies and work on that. "

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am not so sure that homophobic attitudes are the majority anymore (I like to think not anyway). Those who hang onto these views just seem to be particularly loud and publicly aggressive, in an attempt to make themselves feel more relevant than they actually are.

Oh yeah I know, I just mean people who aren't gay judging gay people.

Bannasidhe

No

jank wrote: »

Thank you Sarky for proving my point. If one does not conform to your acceptable ideal of equality than one is a homophobe. That is exactly my point, where people define themselves the terms of reference and sling it about carelessly.

David Starkey doesn't fully favour gay marriage for example (he thinks it comes with the baggage of heterosexuality, why would gays want to burden themselves with that?), yet he is a homosexual atheist himself who fought for other gay rights all his life. Is he a self hating homophobe? The world isn't black and white where the champions of equality are battling the evils of conservatism, fighting the good fight the rest of us. How is the view from up there?

However, Starkey is questioning why Gay people would want to copy hetro-normative practices as those practices are themselves flawed. That is a common theme on the debate on same-sex marriage within the wider Gay community. Some fear the loss of what makes the Gay community unique as it's culture gets absorbed into the wider heterosexual social norms.

Iona and their ilk are coming from a place that says 'I can avail of this but you can't because I don't approve of you.' That is the totality of their argument. They have no issue with marriage in and of itself - they just want to exclude those whose 'lifestyle' they disapprove of from availing of it.

Sarky

No

jank wrote: »

How is the view from up there?

Pretty sweet. On a good day, I can see the big picture.

Nodin

No

A good critique of Iona on the recent issue.
http://oireachtasretort.tumblr.com/post/74874203955/when-will-they-think-of-the-children

david75

No

Great read
http://ourmaninstockholm.com/2014/01/28/panti-mime-time-for-iona/

J_E

No

Nodin wrote: »

A good critique of Iona on the recent issue.
http://oireachtasretort.tumblr.com/post/74874203955/when-will-they-think-of-the-children

Was linked a while back, a well written post.

Kiwi in IE

No

mango salsa wrote: »

They have almost unending access to mainstream media in RTE, Irish Times and Irish Independent.
The problem is because of that media access they are not irrelevant

Yes you are right. I was just re reading my post saying they are irrelevant and thinking its easy enough for me to say that. I am straight and it's not me whose relationship rights they are trying to restrict.

They are poisonous and should be treated by mainstream media as is fitting for the loony, extremist fringe group they are. The amount of airtime they get is appalling.

Annasopra

No

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes you are right. I was just re reading my post saying they are irrelevant and thinking its easy enough for me to say that. I am straight and it's not me whose relationship rights they are trying to restrict.

They are poisonous and should be treated by mainstream media as is fitting for the loony, extremist fringe group they are. The amount of airtime they get is appalling.

But you see they have to get airtime as well for "balance"

J_E

No

mango salsa wrote: »

But you see they have to get airtime as well for "balance"

I think it's important we hear both sides. My issue is that Iona seem to be the go-to on every issue now with a contrasting side. I think it's an uneven spectrum.

Kiwi in IE

No

mango salsa wrote: »

But you see they have to get airtime as well for "balance"

To about the same extent that racist opinions need media portrayal for 'balance'.

Kiwi in IE

No

The only marriage that is any of David Quinn's business is his own. I don't actually see why we need to constantly hear his opinion on other people's relationships. And then when a spade is labelled a spade, legal action is threatened and the national broadcaster apologises? I don't get it. If he and Iona wish to voice their irrational opinions constantly over National media in the name of free speech, then they must accept the free speech of others who believe that they are homophobic bigots.

Shakti

No

Oh it's not just other peoples marriage's D.Q. has an opinion on their children, their schools, their gender lots of stuff thats not his business. I find it really irritating they way they have appropriated 'Iona' for themselves.

eorpach

david75 wrote: »

Great read
http://ourmaninstockholm.com/2014/01/28/panti-mime-time-for-iona/

Superb opinion piece. It really does lay bare the larger problem that lies ahead as a result of the actions of RTÉ today.

I think its useful to quote a bit from the piece:

"Try as I might, I cannot find any academic research to suggest that the best treatment for any kind of phobia is large piles of license-payer’s money given to people who are alleged to be irrational or afraid of stuff on television. But the real hubris comes at the end.

"The RTE apology is an extremely valuable and important contribution to having such a debate."

It is no such thing. The legal letters demanding that Iona not be accused of being irrational or afraid have effectively killed any chance of such debate.

The killing of the debate and the receipt of damages from RTE is therefore no victory. It’s more a case of closing the stable door after the horse has thoroughly rogered freedom of speech in a most self-righteous manner.

But hopefully this will be a lesson to Irish media.

Never mention Iona on air or in print.

Never interview them.

Never ask them on air."

The above quote raises a very important point - just how will the mainstream media (not least RTÉ) treat the Iona Institute and similar groups going forward, now that they have have so triumphantly extracted an apology from the State Broadcaster? - one which David Quinn of Iona characterises as "an extremely valuable and important contribution to having such a debate."

EuskalHerria

No

Iona institute now join Scientology and Voldermort in the "they who must not be named" category.

J_E

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Iona institute now join Scientology and Voldermort in the "they who must not be named" category.

The issue is though, as long as they draw the 'controversial' moniker with them, they will be invited for every piece that needs a counter argument, on many issues. In a sense, the Westboro Baptist Church work on this principle. As hated as they may ever be, they're still making money because controversy = profit, especially when spurred on by media.

Bannasidhe

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Iona institute now join Scientology and Voldermort in the "they who must not be named" category.

Grudge Match:

'they who must not be named ' Vs 'the love that dare not speak it's name'

This time...It's Personal!


:pac:

EuskalHerria

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

The issue is though, as long as they draw the 'controversial' moniker with them, they will be invited for every piece that needs a counter argument, on many issues. In a sense, the Westboro Baptist Church work on this principle. As hated as they may ever be, they're still making money because controversy = profit, especially when spurred on by media.

Absolutely. John Waters and Breda O'Brian are employed not due to their inciteful (more inciting) pieces, it's because they're controversial. I'd wager more people opposed to their opinion actually read their articles than are in favour. This thread is 68 pages long for example. They live for the oxygen of infamy and their opportunity for publicity.

Also if those who work in the legal department at RTE can't quash a libel case from John Waters relevant to homophobia, then I would really consider a different career path.

J_E

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Absolutely. John Waters and Breda O'Brian are employed not due to their inciteful (more inciting) pieces, it's because they're controversial. I'd wager more people opposed to their opinion actually read their articles than are in favour. This thread is 68 pages long for example. They live for the oxygen of infamy and their opportunity for publicity.

Also if those who work in the legal department at RTE can't quash a libel case from John Waters relevant to homophobia, then I would really consider a different career path.

It's sickening when you think about it. They're fiercely organised and have managed to permeate Irish media nice and snug at this stage. More shame on the media outlets enabling it.

eorpach

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Absolutely. John Waters and Breda O'Brian are employed not due to their inciteful (more inciting) pieces, it's because they're controversial. I'd wager more people opposed to their opinion actually read their articles than are in favour. This thread is 68 pages long for example. They live for the oxygen of infamy and their opportunity for publicity.

Also if those who work in the legal department at RTE can't quash a libel case from John Waters relevant to homophobia, then I would really consider a different career path.

I quite agree with your critique about RTÉ's legal department - its bizarre that they don't seem to have received cogent legal advice in relation to their (uncontested) liability on this issue.

Here is another very interesting opinion piece about RTÉ's actions today:

RTE Iona Institute Payments Reveal Something Rotten at the Heart of the National Broadcaster

And here's an excerpt:

"With remarkable alacrity – not mention synchronicity – those same people bombarded RTÉ with a broadside of legal threats which led to a cringeing, cowardly climb-down by the broadcaster, removal of the video clip from the RTÉ website and a public apology read by the show’s presenter, Brendan O’Connor.

But more significantly, if this unseemly, gloating press release from Lolek Ltd is to be believed, RTÉ also handed over an undisclosed sum of money to certain individuals in what it describes as damages. To the best of my knowledge, damages are awarded by a court, and the Lolek Ltd threats remain untested in law. Therefore, what RTÉ did was make ex-gratia payments to these individuals.

Even if you ignore the self-pitying tone of the headline: Threatening emails received by The Iona Institute, the Lolek Ltd press release has the usual smell of half-truth and spin about it, since O’Neill didn’t accuse any of the people associated with the ludicrous Iona Institute of being homophobic. What he actually said was that they were really horrible and mean about gays."

The blog raises some very interesting questions for the powers that be at RTÉ:

- Since Lolek Ltd is just another small niche PR company, why are its representatives afforded such a disproportionate level of access to the RTÉ studios?

- Why are these people not introduced clearly by RTÉ presenters as representatives of Lolek Ltd?

- Why did RTÉ collapse under the pressure of this flimsy legal threat? It has been pointed out by legal professionals that what Rory O’Neill said was uttered in good faith and without malice, that as a member of a minority he was entitled to defend himself against what he saw as oppression and that in any case he didn’t accuse these individuals of being homophobic, even though some people would conclude that many of their campaigns are decidedly so.

I for one would appreciate an answer from RTÉ on all/any of the above questions.

Note: Lolek Ltd is the body corporate trading as "The Iona Institute".

EuskalHerria

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's sickening when you think about it. They're fiercely organised and have managed to permeate Irish media nice and snug at this stage. More shame on the media outlets enabling it.

It sells newspapers and gets online views that probably push up as revenue. They are almost bulletproof as long as they rope in large opposition and their own core of similarly ultra catholic followers.

I heard a rumour that the compensation was released online. All three have received a €100 bar tab in the George. Any truth I wonder?