Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

diddlybit

No

LGBTNoise are hosting a protest against RTE's recent actions and in support of Panti in Dublin city centre on Sunday.

Details can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1417272788513254/

SpaceTime

I would definitely encourage non-LGBT people to go too. This is a fundamental freedom of speech and human rights issue.

lazygal

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

I would definitely encourage non-LGBT people to go too. This is a fundamental freedom of speech and human rights issue.

Yes. What's next on the Iona list of targets? Wimmenz in the home provision in the constitution can't be debated? Abortion discussion off limits?

floggg

No

jank wrote: »

Yet, we never if rarely here this point of view on the mainstream. From the way I see it on threads such as this, if you are not 100% for Gay Marriage with no equivocation or reservations than it is fair game to call you a bigot and homophobe. I.E the world is a simple black and white. Of course people have different opinions from the two that are usually highlighted, the simple yes or no, for or against. Starkey provides one and as I demonstrated he is correctly not labelled a homophobe yet if one had to do the ultimate cheery pick to see what binary box he would fall in, it would be on the against side.... so he’s a homophobe to some in this black and white world of ours..:rolleyes: Would be nice to live in a simple world.


I think their argument is actually more than that in fairness and imo is coming from the basis of the traditional family unit where men and women join in some union be it civil or religious to raise a family purely for practical reasons. In their opinion because of this society benefits as a whole due to children being raised in more stable households. Others may disagree and I would not wholly agree with their notion either but at least it’s an argument worth arguing and thinking over rather than the simple ‘They hate us!! Arrrrgh to the battlefields!!”.
The romantic notion of marriage is a very new concept. Marriage for the rich and powerful was about forging ties and alliances in order to remain in their place of empowerment, for the poor it was purely survival. It wasn’t practical for gays to marry as they could not have children yet in certain places throughout history they were riding each other like it was going out of fashion. Similarly it’s not practical for a man to marry his sister as most likely the children will have some major health issues.
It is kind of ironic that people are fighting for the right to marry yet not doing much to actually curb the issues that are blighting western society due to marriage breakdowns and their associated problems and fallout. In an ideal world gay marriage would strengthen this (I hope it may) but once the battle is won the energy and critical mass behind it will rally behind some other niche middle class issue leaving the actual marriage debate in the dust.

1. The essence of Starkey's argument (as summarised in this thread - I'm not familiar with it) is not that gay people aren't worthy or capable of marriage. It's just that there are (or should be) better options for us. That is not a denial of equality. It is a preference for a different arrangement.

Iona and most conservative anti-marriage equality arguments are essentially we are nor worthy or capable.

2. The reason people find the whole "man and woman is traditional" and "think of the children" arguments to be somewhat bigoted when held under the light is:

• tradition for tradition sake is no reason to deny equality
• saying there is something special and unique about heterosexual marriage implies that same sex marriage is not as special or important or comparable to heterosexual marriage
• similar saying heterosexual marriage should be protected as it benefits society as a whole also implies same sex relationships are not beneficial to society or of equal value
• the think of the children argument completely ignores that there are lots of children being raised in same sex households who are disadvantaged as a result of the unequal recognition and protection afforded to same and opposite sex relationships by the State
• the research done on same sex families indicates that children raised in same sex households do just as well as in opposite sex households, and that same sex couples are just as capable as straight couples of being good parents
• arguments that marriage equality would be harmful to children in some way are in no way supported by evidence, and tend to boil down to either "gut feelings" or outdated views on gender roles or sexuality (including the "the kids will catch gay" argument

3. Per the Bold bit - why do people always bring it back to gay sex? What's the obsession? Seriously?

Maximus Alexander

No

Might be worth writing a letter to your TD to badger them into bringing this before the Dail, since RTE are the national broadcaster and funded by public money.

Akrasia

No

floggg wrote: »

3. Per the Bold bit - why do people always bring it back to gay sex? What's the obsession? Seriously?

Because the conservative catholic obsession with all things sexual is the core of this issue.

These are repressed individuals who find the thought of anyone having sex to be 'icky'.

There is a deep seeded shame in catholic culture about sex. Sex is to be a chore and is to be avoided except for the purposes of having children (hence the objection to contraception). Sodomy is not just a reference to gay sex, it actually refers to any sexual act other than heterosexual penetrative sex. So there goes any kind of foreplay that would make sex more fun. You're not supposed to have fun, sex is not a game.

Gay people can't procreate through sex with one another, so gay people should never have sex. Then you have the additional baggage of sex outside marriage being extremely taboo (seriously, it's not too long ago in ireland that young women were called whores and thrown out of their home by their parents if it was discovered that they had been fraternising with anyone outside of marriage) So we have the problem of all sex outside of marriage being immoral, and gay people not having the right to get married to their partner of choice, so all homosexual acts were considered immoral and 'wrong' on multiple counts

There's also the 'disgust'. Because we have been taught that sex is wrong and morally reprehensible, These conservative catholics have been conditioned to find the thought of sex as disgusting. Disgust is a very very powerful emotion and it can be used for evil ends.

The Iona institute want to maintain catholic control of the schools system so that they can indoctrinate the next generation of irish school children with the feelings of self loathing and hate and disgust that is part of teaching 'the catholic ethos' in irish schools.
Thankfully they're on a losing battle and i personally can't wait to see the back of them

floggg

No

Akrasia wrote: »

Because the conservative catholic obsession with all things sexual is the core of this issue.

These are repressed individuals who find the thought of anyone having sex to be 'icky'.

There is a deep seeded shame in catholic culture about sex. Sex is to be a chore and is to be avoided except for the purposes of having children (hence the objection to contraception). Sodomy is not just a reference to gay sex, it actually refers to any sexual act other than heterosexual penetrative sex. So there goes any kind of foreplay that would make sex more fun. You're not supposed to have fun, sex is not a game.

Gay people can't procreate through sex with one another, so gay people should never have sex. Then you have the additional baggage of sex outside marriage being extremely taboo (seriously, it's not too long ago in ireland that young women were called whores and thrown out of their home by their parents if it was discovered that they had been fraternising with anyone outside of marriage) So we have the problem of all sex outside of marriage being immoral, and gay people not having the right to get married to their partner of choice, so all homosexual acts were considered immoral and 'wrong' on multiple counts

There's also the 'disgust'. Because we have been taught that sex is wrong and morally reprehensible, These conservative catholics have been conditioned to find the thought of sex as disgusting. Disgust is a very very powerful emotion and it can be used for evil ends.

The Iona institute want to maintain catholic control of the schools system so that they can indoctrinate the next generation of irish school children with the feelings of self loathing and hate and disgust that is part of teaching 'the catholic ethos' in irish schools.
Thankfully they're on a losing battle and i personally can't wait to see the back of them

Honestly, I don't think that's it. You never hear them talking about unmarried couples and sex so much.

There's just something about the idea of two dudes getting hot and steamy together that just occupies some peoples minds.

SpaceTime

I wouldn't actually say that's uniquely Catholic. Britain was very similar as was (and is) the United States. Many other Christian denominations and several other religions have a lot of hang ups about sex and sexuality.

We just got a catholic flavour of Edwardian and Victorian moral and social conservatism that somehow got bolted onto a notion that we had to be 'Holy Catholic Ireland' rather than just the Republic of Ireland.

Britain largely shook off this kind of stuff beginning in the 60s and 70s we didn't really manage to do that until the 90s but we have caught up very, very quickly.

floggg

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

I wouldn't actually say that's uniquely Catholic. Britain was very similar as was (and is) the United States. Many other Christian denominations and several other religions have a lot of hang ups about sex and sexuality.

We just got a catholic flavour of Edwardian and Victorian moral and social conservatism that somehow got bolted onto a notion that we had to be 'Holy Catholic Ireland' rather than just the Republic of Ireland.

Britain largely shook off this kind of stuff beginning in the 60s and 70s we didn't really manage to do that until the 90s but we have caught up very, very quickly.

Latin America for example is overwhelmingly catholic yet very open with regard to sex and sexuality.

diddlybit

No

A really good article on the Iona Institue from yesterday with a great analysis of the double-think and victimised stance so readily adopted by them as part of their rhetoric. Closing paragragh is stellar

http://oireachtasretort.tumblr.com/post/74874203955/when-will-they-think-of-the-children

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

Because the conservative catholic obsession with all things sexual is the core of this issue.
Blah
Blah
Blah
Thankfully they're on a losing battle and i personally can't wait to see the back of them

Italy is very catholic yet you have ex-porn stars who have are members of parliament. To be blunt, this arm chair analysis of 'backward' Ireland does my head. Its just an elevated version of a Joe Duffy phone in.

SpaceTime

floggg wrote: »

Latin America for example is overwhelmingly catholic yet very open with regard to sex and sexuality.

I think it's very definitely a Victorian conservativism that just morphed into an unchallenged Irish version with strongly catholic overtones.

Let's not forget that the UK was actively persecuting gay people in the 1950s. Alan Turing being one of the most prominent examples. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Tragic and awful story where someone who probably was instrumental in winning WWII by decrypting Nazi coding systems by basically inventing the modern general purpose computer was prosecuted and forced to undergo hormone therapy and ultimately took his own life.

Homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967 in England and Wales and not until 1980 in Scotland and 1982 in Northern Ireland.

So I sometimes find it a little bit odd when I hear British people going on about conservatism in Ireland as being a uniquely Irish thing.

However, we still need to constantly challenge anyone who would attempt to roll is back 50 years!

jank

floggg wrote: »

What annoys me is how some people don't really grasp free speech.

"Conservative" types will exercise their right of free speech to say something which many will find to be inaccurate or offensive. "Liberal mainstream"/"liberal facist" types will then exercise their own right of free speech to counter that argument and to point out that it is inaccurate or offensive.

The "conservative" types will then accuse the liberals of denying them free speech - not appreciating that if free speech gives you a right to say something offensive, it must also give the offended the right of reply.

In reality, the problem is that the "conservatives" struggle with the shift in the balance of opinions, and whereas they were free to say this sort of thing with impunity in the past as popular opinion sided with them, opinions have thankfully moved on and bigotry and hatred are now challenged.

Whereas before the conservatives position was taken as given, now it is being challenged and exposed for what it is. And so if it seems to most that it appears bigoted, racist, sexist or homophobic it will be called as such.

Unfortunately for the conservatives, they haven't quite adjusted to this shift in the balance of power, and having to defend the indefensible.

So they fall back argument is to say that the liberals are shutting down free speech.

Not true - it's simple a case of liberals using their own free speech to hold a light to ugly or inaccurate opinions.

And here's the proof - try and find a substantive counter argument to marriage equality that's not rooted in religion, tradition for tradition's sake or the long debunked fallacy that same sex couples cannot raise children successfully or will pass on gender or sexuality issues to their children.

Once you hold a light up to the argument, it's found to be baseless. And if you are opposed to equal rights for a minority without any objectively justifiable reason, then that is a very strong indication of bigotry.

Tbh, this is a load of hot air. You wanted a substantive counter argument? How about David Starkey's? The world is not black and white with liberals fighting conservative evils. Your whole post reeks of smugness.

J_E

No

jank wrote: »

I could not give a **** to be honest about the Iona institute or who marries who tbh. What does bug me are opportunists who use this topic for political expediency, people who climb on their high horse, people who sneer at those who have a different opinion while at the same time most of those could not give crap about marriage itself.

See, this is why I'm pretty annoyed, you don't actually have an interest in the subject, you just want your 2c in for the sake of it and play the 'left vs right' politics game, which is petty as hell. You still didn't give me any indication that there was a good argument put against gay marriage that wasn't cemented in reasons floggg suggested. Put the stirring spoon down.

jank wrote: »

Tbh, this is a load of hot air. You wanted a substantive counter argument? How about David Starkey's? The world is not black and white with liberals fighting conservative evils. Your whole post reeks of smugness.

Broken record. This is a valid argument but it's not one you're personally interested in, it's one that has been discussed in gay circles but still shouldn't mean that gay marriage is stopped for the majority of gay people who would like it happen.

Skylinehead

No

jank wrote: »

Tbh, this is a load of hot air. You wanted a substantive counter argument? How about David Starkey's? The world is not black and white with liberals fighting conservative evils. Your whole post reeks of smugness.

David Starkey's argument is not the same as Iona's "argument" though, so it's not really relevant to the point.

jank

floggg wrote: »

1. The essence of Starkey's argument (as summarised in this thread - I'm not familiar with it) is not that gay people aren't worthy or capable of marriage. It's just that there are (or should be) better options for us. That is not a denial of equality. It is a preference for a different arrangement.

Iona and most conservative anti-marriage equality arguments are essentially we are nor worthy or capable.

2. The reason people find the whole "man and woman is traditional" and "think of the children" arguments to be somewhat bigoted when held under the light is:

• tradition for tradition sake is no reason to deny equality
• saying there is something special and unique about heterosexual marriage implies that same sex marriage is not as special or important or comparable to heterosexual marriage
• similar saying heterosexual marriage should be protected as it benefits society as a whole also implies same sex relationships are not beneficial to society or of equal value
• the think of the children argument completely ignores that there are lots of children being raised in same sex households who are disadvantaged as a result of the unequal recognition and protection afforded to same and opposite sex relationships by the State
• the research done on same sex families indicates that children raised in same sex households do just as well as in opposite sex households, and that same sex couples are just as capable as straight couples of being good parents
• arguments that marriage equality would be harmful to children in some way are in no way supported by evidence, and tend to boil down to either "gut feelings" or outdated views on gender roles or sexuality (including the "the kids will catch gay" argument

3. Per the Bold bit - why do people always bring it back to gay sex? What's the obsession? Seriously?

What is your definition of lots? There are some but they would be in a minority I would suspect and would think that less than 1% of children today in Ireland live in a same sex house. Do we actually have numbers to this affect?

J_E

No

diddlybit wrote: »

LGBTNoise are hosting a protest against RTE's recent actions and in support of Panti in Dublin city centre on Sunday.

Details can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1417272788513254/

I reckon I'll be going, if anyone else here is drop me a message.

jank

Skylinehead wrote: »

David Starkey's argument is not the same as Iona's "argument" though, so it's not really relevant to the point.

I. Know. I never said it was the same, I just correctly pointed out that it was a counter argument to same sex marriage that appears to be non homophobic and acceptable, therefore the point is proved.

J_E

No

jank wrote: »

I. Know. I never said it was the same, I just correctly pointed out that it was a counter argument to same sex marriage that appears to be non homophobic and acceptable, therefore the point is proved.

You proved your point, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion itself though? That's what I'm wondering. The last page has been a lot of semantics and political faff and not a lot of solid discussion on the subject. You already admit you don't really care about the topic though.

jank

Cydoniac wrote: »

See, this is why I'm pretty annoyed, you don't actually have an interest in the subject, you just want your 2c in for the sake of it and play the 'left vs right' politics game, which is petty as hell. You still didn't give me any indication that there was a good argument put against gay marriage that wasn't cemented in reasons floggg suggested. Put the stirring spoon down.

David Starkey for the 10th time…

Cydoniac wrote: »

Broken record. This is a valid argument but it's not one you're personally interested in, it's one that has been discussed in gay circles but still shouldn't mean that gay marriage is stopped for the majority of gay people who would like it happen.

What do you mean personally interested in? Off on the conspiracies again?

Skylinehead

No

jank wrote: »

I. Know. I never said it was the same, I just correctly pointed out that it was a counter argument to same sex marriage that appears to be non homophobic and acceptable, therefore the point is proved.

True, it proves that you don't have to be homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage. But it's a very niche argument, and it's not one that's going to be used by the conservative/Iona type. Their arguments are completely baseless, so it's a valid assumption that they are homophobic.

J_E

No

jank wrote: »

David Starkey for the 10th time…

Yes, discussed, floggg gave reasons as I already said, not a strong argument, moving on!

What do you mean personally interested in? Off on the conspiracies again?

I was hoping you might be

jank wrote: »

I could not give a **** to be honest about the Iona institute or who marries who tbh. What does bug me are opportunists who use this topic for political expediency, people who climb on their high horse, people who sneer at those who have a different opinion while at the same time most of those could not give crap about marriage itself.

jank

Cydoniac wrote: »

You proved your point, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion itself though? That's what I'm wondering. The last page has been a lot of semantics and political faff and not a lot of solid discussion on the subject. You already admit you don't really care about the topic though.

Ah, OK so it appears I will be getting my marching orders soon as the mob are getting restless and I am upsetting the apple cart so my options are
A) turn into an Iona Institiute mouth piece where I air my views and get 30 people on my back, get a good kicking and basically entertain people for the day.
Turn into a Gay rights activist, state my wholehearted approval for gay marriage, write angry emails to RTE and jump on the demonstration band wagon.
C) none of the above and live my life in peace


Think C for me….

I am sure someone of option A will be along shortly so you can all have your fun since the remit and scope of the topic is willfully defined as very black and very white.

floggg

No

jank wrote: »

Tbh, this is a load of hot air. You wanted a substantive counter argument? How about David Starkey's? The world is not black and white with liberals fighting conservative evils. Your whole post reeks of smugness.

jank wrote: »

I. Know. I never said it was the same, I just correctly pointed out that it was a counter argument to same sex marriage that appears to be non homophobic and acceptable, therefore the point is proved.

I note you chose to ignore the substantive free speech point.

And as i asked subsequently - is Starkey's argument that we (gay people) aren't entitled to marriage equality, or that we shouldn't actually want marriage equality. From what I've read he does not see any principled reason why we should not be granted marriage equality but instead his criticism is with regard to our desire to get married.

The two are very different things.

One is an argument about the legitimacy of gay relationships. The other is an argument about the legitimacy of the institution of marriage.

Now there are gay people who take the view we are not entitled or worthy of marriage equality. However, those arguments do tend to take the line of the vacuous arguments I posted above regarding the "special nature" of man and woman and child rearing etc.

jank

Skylinehead wrote: »

True, it proves that you don't have to be homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage. But it's a very niche argument, and it's not one that's going to be used by the conservative/Iona type. Their arguments are completely baseless, so it's a valid assumption that they are homophobic.

Correction, their argument is different so its deemed baseless, and therefore is perceived as homophobic. Its all subjective wether you like it or not.

J_E

No

jank wrote: »

Ah, OK so it appears I will be getting my marching orders soon as the mob are getting restless and I am upsetting the apple cart so my options are

Keep believing that you're being mowed down by an imaginary PC brigade... Yet another false assumption.

Friend Computer

jank wrote: »

Ah, OK so it appears I will be getting my marching orders soon as the mob are getting restless and I am upsetting the apple cart so my options are
A) turn into an Iona Institiute mouth piece where I air my views and get 30 people on my back, get a good kicking and basically entertain people for the day.
Turn into a Gay rights activist, state my wholehearted approval for gay marriage, write angry emails to RTE and jump on the demonstration band wagon.
C) none of the above and live my life in peace


Think C for me….

I am sure someone of option A will be along shortly so you can all have your fun since the remit and scope of the topic is willfully defined as very black and very white.

You forgot

D) Play the martyr and wallow in smug satisfaction which can then be dredged up the next time you need ammunition to use against others

Which you've opted for. If you've got something to say then say it. So far you've waffled with the obvious intention of riling people up and then getting them to react so you can claim victimhood when they, understandably, do.

It would be a brilliant ploy if it wasn't so blunderingly transparent.

jank

floggg wrote: »

How so? Please point out what's wrong with the above?

Yes, never in the history of the world has a liberal every said anything wrong. Everything they said was utterly true and fact, like the periodic table…. that is basically your argument.

EuskalHerria

No

"liberals want freedom of speech, unless an opinion differs with their own, rabble, rabble, rabble".

"The word homophobia is only used to shut down debate or a conversation, blah, blah, blah".

This nonsense has to come to a stop. You're entitled to an opinion but you're not entitled to be listened to.

People also really need to get a grasp of the word homophobia. If your opinion means actively speaking, campaigning or looking to legislate against a section of society, and not allowing them to have the same rights you have with no basis other than irrational fear and religious belief, then yes you are going to be referred to as prejudice in some shape or form.

There's nothing worse than those wishing to shut down debate then screaming for freedom of speech. Or the oppressors claiming to be the oppressed. It is absolute nonsense. Yes indeed, Ireland is screaming out for a party to speak up for the conservative Christian demographic. They have waited too long.

Sarky

No

What's with the constant sneering at 'liberalism', jank? Did a liberal kill your father leaving you with supernatural powers of condescension or something?