Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Options
1…34689…118

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    RobertKK wrote: »
    The changes make it easier for two abusers who could be heterosexual men to form a fake marriage and pose as a loving couple, with a stable home to rear a child.
    U
    I don't agree with men adopting and fostering children, with no woman there.
    The think is in the church now in Ireland, having na child alone with a priest would be a breach of child safety and would be seen as putting an innocent at risk of false allegations.

    Abusers will use the adoption and fostering services if they have no criminal record. My view is tough on men, but as a man I think child protection is more important that what a man may want.

    Trust a priest with a child are you having a giraffe, id sit in the confession box with me child


  • Options
    #153
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Going on about that person's username needing a third K is utterly proving the point of people who go on about "liberal fascism".
    Whatever about his views, he has posted them without abusive language, therefore people should respond in kind in order for their points to hold any

    You saw all his posts over the last week


  • Options
    #154
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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?

    Marriage constantly changes and evolves. In 1937 12 year old girls could marry. Why shouldn't 12 year old girls be able to marry now?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #155
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    They could a thousand years ago. Is that where we're going?

    That's tradition? When does tradition start with you Phill?


  • Options
    #156
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Are they opposed to gay marriage because the wedding cake is supposed to have one male and one female figurine?



    Those people deserve some sort of medal. They're an inspiration to us all. :rolleyes:




    How about, almost everyone in the Iona Institute is a conservative, christian homophobe? Would that be fair to say? They're always telling us about how it's written in their 'holy' book. Can't argue with those 2,000 year old tales from desert goat herders.
    Not suggesting or even implying they deserve a medal; just that someone can be a person who doesn't have a problem with people being gay, but simultaneously believes the institute of marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    I don't agree with that, but I don't think it's impossible for a person who believes marriage should just be one particular way (also being opposed to polygamy) not to be homophobic either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    They could a thousand years ago. Is that where we're going?

    No - where we are going is that marriage constantly changes and evolves and to claim there is only one form of traditional marriage that has never changed is nonsense.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #158
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    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.

    Yeah. And if 'the gheys' are allowed to marry, will I have to divorce my wife and get gay married? I have to say, it's not my cup of tea, but I'll see if any of my friends are up for it.

    And what about my wife? Maybe she could marry the sauce pot up the road, and invite me over. Oooh this is exciting.



    :pac:


  • Options
    #159
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Not suggesting or even implying they deserve a medal; just that someone can be a person who doesn't have a problem with people being gay, but simultaneously believes the institute of marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    I don't agree with that, but I don't think it's impossible for a person who believes marriage should just be one particular way (also being opposed to polygamy) not to be homophobic either.
    It's a difficult situation - marriage should definitely be a thing; whether that 'thing' is going to be welcomed in churches is another matter. I don't see why people are so averse to doing it in a registry office or the like though. There is definitely a distinction between civil and religious marriage, a lot of people miss, which just muddles up the debate. Then you have the situation with practicing gay Catholics who want to marry and more trouble happens.

    Just to add another spanner into Iona's gears - David Quinn has been shown to defend symphysiotomy before. (basically, sawing open a woman's pelvis for childbirth, it's a pretty hideous act with lifelong consequences) Not entirely related to the thread, but to those who defend Iona, well...they have a history beyond gay politics.


  • Options
    #160
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    'traditional marriage' rarely had a ceremony until about 400 years ago. Nor was a registry kept until even more recently. This notion of what we have now as some ancient institution is bollocks, tbh. Certainly there were things described as "marriage" and there were family units but they frequently have no relation to what goes on in the modern world.


  • Options
    #161
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Are they opposed to gay marriage because the wedding cake is supposed to have one male and one female figurine?



    Those people deserve some sort of medal. They're an inspiration to us all. :rolleyes:




    How about, almost everyone in the Iona Institute is a conservative, christian homophobe? Would that be fair to say? They're always telling us about how it's written in their 'holy' book. Can't argue with those 2,000 year old tales from desert goat herders.

    More like a 2,000 year old toothfairy/santa claus/easter bunny story.Easily believable story for kids, astonishing that people still believe this carry on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Yeah. And if 'the gheys' are allowed to marry, will I have to divorce my wife and get gay married? I have to say, it's not my cup of tea, but I'll see if any of my friends are up for it.

    And what about my wife? Maybe she could marry the sauce pot up the road, and invite me over. Oooh this is exciting.



    :pac:


    Nope, I've looked up the Gay Marry Register for after the Homopocalypse and you're married to me - no nights out on the town for you, my lad.

    O, and get a wig - dark or blonde, I'm easy.


  • Options
    #163
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mango salsa wrote: »
    No - where we are going is that marriage constantly changes and evolves and to claim there is only one form of traditional marriage that has never changed is nonsense.

    No-one is claiming that. The history of marriage is laid out on webpages all over the internet. It's a stable arrangement though. A better arrangement? I dunno.


  • Options
    #164
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    No
    i just cannot believe in a 1st world country, in 2014 we are still arguing that if a couple who love each other want to cement that love and relationship in civil (and religious) law that they aren't allowed to do so because of their gender????


    i am a married woman and my husband and i tend not to compare our marriage to others, we are unique as is our marriage and no other marriage be it john and mary down the road or Mike and James up the road changes what we have,


    all not allowing gay marriage really does is stop two loving people in a loving relationship from following the path of their relationship like straight people do everyday.

    Its their life let them choose how they want to live it.


  • Options
    #165
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    No
    Statement of fact. Yes, they are.


  • Options
    #166
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    No-one is claiming that. The history of marriage is laid out on webpages all over the internet. It's a stable arrangement though. A better arrangement? I dunno.

    so who approves of the tradional changes?


  • Options
    #167
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Yeah. And if 'the gheys' are allowed to marry, will I have to divorce my wife and get gay married? I have to say, it's not my cup of tea, but I'll see if any of my friends are up for it.

    And what about my wife? Maybe she could marry the sauce pot up the road, and invite me over. Oooh this is exciting.



    :pac:

    what if she didnt invite you?


  • Options
    #168
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    No
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Marriage constantly changes and evolves. In 1937 12 year old girls could marry. Why shouldn't 12 year old girls be able to marry now?

    No no no y'see, marriage can evolve and change only as long as the gheys aren't included.


  • Options
    #169
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    No
    Nodin wrote: »
    'traditional marriage' rarely had a ceremony until about 400 years ago. Nor was a registry kept until even more recently. This notion of what we have now as some ancient institution is bollocks, tbh. Certainly there were things described as "marriage" and there were family units but they frequently have no relation to what goes on in the modern world.
    And what's more is that those 'unofficial' type marriages have been even more rife throughout history than the 'official' types (e.g. performed by a priest and recorded between high profile people, kind of like a modern day celebrity wedding).


  • Options
    #170
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    No-one is claiming that. The history of marriage is laid out on webpages all over the internet. It's a stable arrangement though. A better arrangement? I dunno.

    How is it more stable and a better arrangement than gay marriage?

    Kim Kardashian isn't exactly a shining beacon for 'traditional' marriage


  • Options
    #171
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    krudler wrote: »
    No no no y'see, marriage can evolve and change only as long as the gheys aren't included.

    Gay men were marrying thousands of years before you were born. Mixed polygamist relationships were common. The question is whether we go back in time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    elfy4eva
    Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭elfy4eva


    No
    The Iona Institute in a Nutshell

    http://s8.postimg.org/jhjvasnh1/Iona.png


  • Options
    #173
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    efb wrote: »
    so who approves of the tradional changes?

    Not sure what you mean


  • Options
    #174
    adrag
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭adrag


    No
    elfy4eva wrote: »
    The Iona Institute in a Nutshell

    http://s8.postimg.org/jhjvasnh1/Iona.png

    Spot on


  • Options
    #175
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    elfy4eva wrote: »
    The Iona Institute in a Nutshell

    http://s8.postimg.org/jhjvasnh1/Iona.png

    That's what's happening now with liberal fascism. Theres just no handbook for the modern nazi


  • Options
    #176
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Not sure what you mean

    That something is a tradition and therefore can't be changed.

    Who decides that it can't be changed?

    In this case the Irish people will in a referendum.


  • Options
    #177
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's what's happening now with liberal fascism. Theres just no handbook for the modern nazi

    we have iPads! :D


  • Options
    #178
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,044 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    No-one is claiming that. The history of marriage is laid out on webpages all over the internet. It's a stable arrangement though. A better arrangement? I dunno.
    But people are claiming exactly that. They are claiming marriage should not change because traditional marriage as defined by Hyde v Hyde is a man and a woman.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #179
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Daith wrote: »
    That something is a tradition and therefore can't be changed.

    Who decides that it can't be changed?

    In this case the Irish people will in a referendum.

    Which is the proper thing to do. Open discussion, democracy, it's like a real country again


  • Options
    #180
    elfy4eva
    Registered Users Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭elfy4eva


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That's what's happening now with liberal fascism. Theres just no handbook for the modern nazi

    http://s30.postimg.org/70cf1pgj5/wat.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Which is the proper thing to do. Open discussion, democracy, it's like a real country again

    Not legal threats to silence people?


Advertisement