nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

efb

And if so do you think it's acceptable. Would people be allowed have racist views and not be allowed be challenged on this? And to call them racist is stifling debate???

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ahem.....

All opinions are welcome in my view.

So my opinion is the Iona crowd are homphobes. They can not actually give a reason why two gay people can not get married. They focus on a children in a debate about marriage.

Please challenge my opinion.

Corkfeen

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.

You specifically wish to prevent gay people from marrying because you think it will destroy traditional marriage. That is homophobic. Marriage has been evolving for millenia btw. So same sex couples marrying will not have a negative effect.

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.

The vast majority do not approve of death threats for any reason tbh. Secondly the Iona institute are regularly given a platform on Irish media so they're not in any way underrepresented but every time they discuss same sex marriage, they still feel the need to use debunked studies, almost as if they have no argument. I've seen Quinn alone on TV a dozen times on past 6 months then there's his radio discussions plus his column .

_Redzer_

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes, by all means challenge it.

Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.

Ah, here he is. One whiff of the word gay and he's all over it.

RobertKK

MagicMarker wrote: »

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

Pretty simple really.

Nature denied me the right to give birth to my own child, nature hates men.
Everything has to be equal, the same.
Men and women are exactly the same, lets keep telling ourselves that.

Halloween Jack

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?

Why indeed.

Daith

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

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.

It's about being equal. A straight man can marry a straight woman. A gay man can not marry another gay man.

A straight man can not marry two women. A gay man can not marry two gay men.

One thing changes for the gay man to become equal to the straight man both in what he can and can not do.

efb

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes, by all means challenge it.

Screaming homophobia over differing opinions just makes people look very very stupid.

Well surely then allow people to see their "stupidity" that quash it with
Sols letters...

RayM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

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.

It's a completely separate argument - usually whipped out by people when their anti-gay arguments are failing miserably.

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

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

RTE claim it is hard to find people when it comes to having debates and it leads to a small pool of people from both sides that usually end up on TV or radio.

I believe he did tell the gardai.

MagicMarker

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature denied me the right to give birth to my own child, nature hates men.
Everything has to be equal, the same.
Men and women are exactly the same, lets keep telling ourselves that.

Logic isn't really your forte is it?

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature denied me the right to give birth to my own child, nature hates men.
Everything has to be equal, the same.
Men and women are exactly the same, lets keep telling ourselves that.

Society gives you the ability to have a child though

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

RTE claim it is hard to find people when it comes to having debates and it leads to a small pool of people from both sides that usually end up on TV or radio.

Send me the link please. The Iona crowd are always on TV and debates anytime this comes up.

Corkfeen

MagicMarker wrote: »

Logic isn't really your forte is it?

He was going on about his only issue being potential paedophilia the other day, it's almost as if he doesn't have a clue what his argument is.

Legs.Eleven

Whatever they fook they are, one thing I am sure of: I don't like them. I can't stand them, in fact.

padd b1975

AerynSun wrote: »

But screaming homophobia over homophobia is quite justified.

Indeed it is.

Although screaming homophobia over trivial matters just cheapens the charge in my opinion and just dilutes the reaction to the effect of genuine mistreatment of gays.

The (gay) boy who cried wolf I suppose.

efb

padd b1975 wrote: »

Indeed it is.

Although screaming homophobia over trivial matters just cheapens the charge in my opinion and just dilutes the reaction to the effect of genuine mistreatment of gays.

The (gay) boy who cried wolf I suppose.

Should his views be silenced???

RobertKK

RayM wrote: »

It's a completely separate argument - usually whipped out by people when their anti-gay arguments are failing miserably.

So it is only ok to talk about the definition of marriage in a very narrow band, otherwise they are anti-gay?

But if one only believes in marriage between opposite sexes, they are homophobes.

If the definition of marriage is to be discussed, then you can't have your cake and eat it, so to simply suit one view.

AerynSun

padd b1975 wrote: »

... dilutes the reaction to the effect of genuine mistreatment of gays.

Could you help me out here, because maybe I'm not understanding what constitutes the "genuine mistreatment of gays"?

Maybe let's have up a list of what 'counts' in your book as mistreatment?

Frank Lee Midere

_Redzer_ wrote: »

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.

Again, where?

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Indeed it is.

Although screaming homophobia over trivial matters just cheapens the charge in my opinion and just dilutes the reaction to the effect of genuine mistreatment of gays.

The (gay) boy who cried wolf I suppose.

Seriously? I find most LGBT people on debates show a huge amount of restraint in not calling people homophobes and debating all points shown.

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

So it is only ok to talk about the definition of marriage in a very narrow band, otherwise they are anti-gay?

But if one only believes in marriage between opposite sexes, they are homophobes.

If the definition of marriage is to be discussed, then you can't have your cake and eat it, so to simply suit one view.

If thru don't agree with homosexuality, why the problem with being identified as homophobic?

MagicMarker

RobertKK wrote: »

But if one only believes in marriage between opposite sexes, they are homophobes.

Yes they are, because there's no rational reason for marriage being exclusive to heterosexual couples. Which only leaves homophobia as far as I'm concerned.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

So it is only ok to talk about the definition of marriage in a very narrow band, otherwise they are anti-gay?

But if one only believes in marriage between opposite sexes, they are homophobes.

If the definition of marriage is to be discussed, then you can't have your cake and eat it, so to simply suit one view.

Somewhere, 100 years ago...

"If the definition of suffrage is to be discussed, then you can't have your cake and eat it, so to simply suit one view. If you allow women to vote, why not extend the franchise to children too? And cats."

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

So it is only ok to talk about the definition of marriage in a very narrow band, otherwise they are anti-gay?

But if one only believes in marriage between opposite sexes, they are homophobes.

If the definition of marriage is to be discussed, then you can't have your cake and eat it, so to simply suit one view.

It's one thing to think gay marriage is wrong - I can respect those views even if I don't agree with them. What angers me about Iona is they are trying to enforce their views on the entire country. Live and let live.

Frank Lee Midere

RayM wrote: »

It's a completely separate argument - usually whipped out by people when their anti-gay arguments are failing miserably.

No it's not. And I am in favour of both gay and polygamous marriages. Not up to me to intervene. I bring it up because the arguments against polygamy are the same as those against gay marriage. Non traditional, non Western and not good for society. Don't see it.

RobertKK

Corkfeen wrote: »

He was going on about his only issue being potential paedophilia the other day, it's almost as if he doesn't have a clue what his argument is.

There is a wide argument.

the change in adoption laws which will be implemented before a SSM referendum has major loopholes that can be exploited by abusers of minors.

You and others believe we must trust the state to spot people who are abusers but not detected, and that in effect we must turn a blind eye to abusers who can abuse the system because it will not happen, even though I showed cases from both Australia and the UK, which people didn't want to discuss.

Then you talk about not having a clue, if you believe it applies to me, then look in the mirror.

5uspect

Has this been posted yet?
http://youtu.be/wopoEJxFYQw

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

the change in adoption laws which will be implemented before a SSM referendum has major loopholes that can be exploited by abusers of minors.

But only by homosexual people? Straight people have never adopted and abused children? This is correct?

You do realize that gay people can adopt already?

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a wide argument.

the change in adoption laws which will be implemented before a SSM referendum has major loopholes that can be exploited by abusers of minors.

You and others believe we must trust the state to spot people who are abusers but not detected, and that in effect we must turn a blind eye to abusers who can abuse the system because it will not happen, even though I showed cases from both Australia and the UK, which people didn't want to discuss.

Then you talk about not having a clue, if you believe it applies to me, then look in the mirror.

Are all abusers not able expose the current law? How will this change things???

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

If thru don't agree with homosexuality, why the problem with being identified as homophobic?

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, it is how one is born.

The thought police just like to term anyone with an opinion they disagree in this area as being homophobic.