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…1011131516…118

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Cydoniac wrote: »
    A lot of people are quite against the likes of gay men holding hands and kissing because it makes them feel sick apparently... (I don't mention women because while its still put in the same regard, people seem to have way less of a problem with it. I have seen lesbian couples many times on Dame St in evening time and nobody seems to throw any disgusting looks. Have two men and suddenly...)

    On a related note, RTE have put themselves in an awful position by bending to Iona's will so readily. Shows how easily they can be manipulated, and that is very worrying.

    Imagine if they simply didn't pander to those with such an issue. It really is one of those things that is required as a part of progress.


  • Options
    #363
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Imagine if they simply didn't pander to those with such an issue. It really is one of those things that is required as a part of progress.
    It was John Waters this time, next time it could be Breda O Brien petitoning a piece out of the Times, and so on. Never underestimate the level of influence these guys get; if you give them an inch, they will go a mile.


  • Options
    #364
    george_lucas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 ✭george_lucas


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    It was John Waters this time, next time it could be Breda O Brien petitoning a piece out of the Times, and so on. Never underestimate the level of influence these guys get; if you give them an inch, they will go a mile.

    conservative voices are pretty rare in irish media circles , its important that a sizeable proportion of the public are represented on the airwaves


  • Options
    #365
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    It doesn't matter, they should be allowed to air their views. Regardless, I think their legal threats were a complete joke, free speech goes both ways.


  • Options
    #366
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    conservative voices are pretty rare in irish media circles , its important that a sizeable proportion of the public are represented on the airwaves
    I think it's important to hear everyone's view on the matter, be it tasteful or distasteful, as long as it carries in some boundaries of self respect. We're currently in a situation where people like John Waters, Brenda Power, etc are free to make whatever remarks about an issue without any resistance (with groups like Iona getting unprecedented show time), while someone like Rory O Neill who defends his views and carries a balanced counter-argument is immediately blacked out because someone shouted wolf. I think something like that should have RTE very worried to be not seen as biased, as their decisions in particular can massively affect the outcome of people's opinions about certain topics (Leo Varadkar blamed RTE for having an overly liberal bias during the abortion discussions on Prime Time, for example)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    george_lucas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 ✭george_lucas


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    I think it's important to hear everyone's view on the matter, be it tasteful or distasteful, as long as it carries in some boundaries of self respect. We're currently in a situation where people like John Waters, Brenda Power, etc are free to make whatever remarks about an issue without any resistance (with groups like Iona getting unprecedented showtime), while someone like Rory O Neill who defends his views and carries a balanced counter-argument is immediately blacked out because someone shouted wolf. I think something like that should have RTE very worried to be not seen as biased, as their decisions in particular can massively affect the outcome of people's opinions about certain topics (Leo Varadkar blamed RTE for having an overly liberal bias during the abortion discussions on Prime Time, for example)


    many people would share leo varadkars views on rte , I wouldn't limit that accusation to the abortion debate either


  • Options
    #368
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    many people would share leo varadkars views on rte , I wouldn't limit that accusation to the abortion debate either
    Do you see the point I am making though? A lot of people will ride their opinion on media outlets, and RTE should be giving both sides a fair discussion. The censorship attacks on Rory O Neill had no backing and RTE showed a degree of spinelessness by being so quick to apologise on Iona's behalf (because let's not have any misconceptions here, it was primarily Iona who had an issue with that segment, hence the 4 letters) and then apologise for the God Hour tweet.

    It was a panic reaction really, no rationale.

    How is someone like Rory O Neill going to be taken seriously to the average person at home not really clued in on the subject? "Oh, he was censored, so he must have said something wrong"


  • Options
    #369
    george_lucas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 ✭george_lucas


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    Do you see the point I am making though? A lot of people will ride their opinion on media outlets, and RTE should be giving both sides a fair discussion. The censorship attacks on Rory O Neill had no backing and RTE showed a degree of spinelessness by being so quick to apologise on Iona's behalf (because let's not have any misconceptions here, it was primarily Iona who had an issue with that segment, hence the 4 letters) and then apologise for the God Hour tweet.

    It was a panic reaction really, no rationale.

    How is someone like Rory O Neill going to be taken seriously to the average person at home not really clued in on the subject? "Oh, he was censored, so he must have said something wrong"


    I have no clue who rory o neill is , I never heard of him before this thread

    I don't think this is a big issue either way or that it will influence the gay marriage referendum next year

    I predict the referendum will pass but I imagine it will be along the lines of 52 - 48 %


  • Options
    #370
    amdublin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 20,650 CMod ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    No
    Don't tell the Bride featured a gay couple the other night on RTE.


  • Options
    #371
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    I have no clue who rory o neill is , I never heard of him before this thread

    I don't think this is a big issue either way or that it will influence the gay marriage referendum next year

    I predict the referendum will pass but I imagine it will be along the lines of 52 - 48 %
    You should probably do some research then. He's a pretty important figure in this argument and for gay rights here, and hosts Pride along with doing a slew of other things. It is a big issue, and what RTE did could easily sway a vote, which is why I think it was irresponsible.

    Hard to predict how this will go...hoping it passes myself, and then people will realise the world didn't collapse into hell.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    george_lucas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 ✭george_lucas


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    You should probably do some research then. He's a pretty important figure in this argument and for gay rights here, and hosts Pride along with doing a slew of other things. It is a big issue, and what RTE did could easily sway a vote, which is why I think it was irresponsible.

    Hard to predict how this will go...hoping it passes myself, and then people will realise the world didn't collapse into hell.

    a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition

    most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives


  • Options
    #373
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition

    most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives

    the yes side aren't censoring the No side!!


  • Options
    #374
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition

    most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives


    Do I need to remind you it is a closed ballot .How can someone be embarrassed ??


  • Options
    #375
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    george_lucas wrote: »
    a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition

    most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives
    Not sure what to make of either your first or last post. People will vote what they personally feel is right.

    Are you doing a Phill on us? :pac:


  • Options
    #376
    george_lucas
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 ✭george_lucas


    marienbad wrote: »
    Do I need to remind you it is a closed ballot .How can someone be embarrassed ??

    not what I meant , I mean the YES side will have little success from shouting accusations of bigotry at those who are unenthusiastic about gay marriage , I mean during the canvassing stage


  • Options
    #377
    whats the point
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭whats the point


    efb wrote: »
    the yes side aren't censoring the No side!!



    OHH yes they are! Who on the no side on this thread alone, has not been labeled as homophobic? And have their opinion dismissed and laughed at.


  • Options
    #378
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    No
    whats the point wrote: »
    OHH yes they are! Who on the no side on this thread alone, has not been labeled as homophobic? And have their opinion dismissed and laughed at.

    thats not censoring, it pulling apart of facile arguments


  • Options
    #379
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    whats the point wrote: »
    OHH yes they are! Who on the no side on this thread alone, has not been labeled as homophobic? And have their opinion dismissed and laughed at.
    Being a homophobe =/= censorship.

    No worse than calling someone a 'liberal fascist' or thereabouts.

    If you make a point, won't stand on it, or back it up, then yes, you will be dismissed, no matter whose 'side' you're on.


  • Options
    #380
    mickstupp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mickstupp


    No
    whats the point wrote: »
    OHH yes they are! Who on the no side on this thread alone, has not been labeled as homophobic? And have their opinion dismissed and laughed at.
    I thought, through the entire thread, it's been more like a consistent demand for a single decent rational argument against. The No side seems to me to be relying on bunch of rubbish masquerading as arguments. "I don't like it. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't approve. It's not traditional. I find it disgusting. And they're my opinions and THEY'RE VALID JUST BECAUSE!" Then there's the Iona Institute who don't understand the idea of a separation of church and state, despite the bible itself saying the two should be separate. I don't think religious belief should be a factor in a discussion that may involve changing the constitution. Opinions are dismissed and laughed at generally when they have no solid basis in reason. I've yet to see a decent rational opinion as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.


  • Options
    #381
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    efb wrote: »
    thats not censoring, it pulling apart of facile arguments


    ...in cases where we could get what the argument actually was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    efb wrote: »
    the yes side aren't censoring the No side!!

    They are. Thats the problem. Dispite the remarks on the opening page of the thread moderators have insisted on letting abuse, insulting language and degrading comments from one side ruin what should be an interesting discussion.

    Bullying and name calling is a form of censorship. Its putting people off talking about the subject.

    Being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic.


  • Options
    #383
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    They are. Thats the problem. Dispite the remarks on the opening page of the thread moderators have insisted on letting abuse, insulting language and degrading comments from one side ruin what should be an interesting discussion.

    Bullying and name calling is a form of censorship. Its putting people off talking about the subject.

    Being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic.


    Why are you against gay marriage Phill? Please explain.


  • Options
    #384
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    They are. Thats the problem. Dispite the remarks on the opening page of the thread moderators have insisted on letting abuse, insulting language and degrading comments from one side ruin what should be an interesting discussion.

    Bullying and name calling is a form of censorship. Its putting people off talking about the subject.

    Being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic.

    Do you differentiate between civil marriage and Christian marriage ?

    What is your view on marriage between divorced couples ?


  • Options
    #385
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    mickstupp wrote: »
    I thought, through the entire thread, it's been more like a consistent demand for a single decent rational argument against. The No side seems to me to be relying on bunch of rubbish masquerading as arguments. "I don't like it. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't approve. It's not traditional. I find it disgusting. And they're my opinions and THEY'RE VALID JUST BECAUSE!" Then there's the Iona Institute who don't understand the idea of a separation of church and state, despite the bible itself saying the two should be separate. I don't think religious belief should be a factor in a discussion that may involve changing the constitution. Opinions are dismissed and laughed at generally when they have no solid basis in reason. I've yet to see a decent rational opinion as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

    I asked why we should change it when the system we have works, and has been proven to work for centuries. I then went on to contextualise the statement by saying that same sex partnership legislation would cover the rights issue.

    With me?

    Also. I argued that if we're going to have a referendum on marriage equality, then lets have it. Lets include polygamy as it is more popular than gay marriage.

    With me still?

    As a sideline argument posters but forward the very important issue of fathers rights which are currently being ignored by the state. Any new legislation needs to take into account these rights as a matter of urgency.


  • Options
    #386
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why are you against gay marriage Phill? Please explain.

    I asked you questions earlier on on the subject which you ignored or evaded. Why would I answer your questions?


  • Options
    #387
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I asked why we should change it when the system we have works, and has been proven to work for centuries. I then went on to contextualise the statement by saying that same sex partnership legislation would cover the rights issue. .

    Marriage is being extended, not changed.

    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Also. I argued that if we're going to have a referendum on marriage equality, then lets have it. Lets include polygamy as it is more popular than gay marriage. .

    Irrelevant and a diversion.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    As a sideline argument posters but forward the very important issue of fathers rights which are currently being ignored by the state. Any new legislation needs to take into account these rights as a matter of urgency.

    Irrelevant and a diversion


  • Options
    #388
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I asked you questions earlier on on the subject which you ignored or evaded. Why would I answer your questions?


    Don't lie phill.

    Why are you against gay marriage?


  • Options
    #389
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    Marriage is being extended, not changed.

    Irrelevant and a diversion.

    Irrelevant and a diversion

    Marriage is being changed nodin. Thats why were having a referendum :rolleyes:

    Still time wasting and evasive. This is the discussion we are having. Don't like it. Don't post. Simples.


  • Options
    #390
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,024 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Marriage is being changed nodin. Thats why were having a referendum :rolleyes:

    Still time wasting and evasive. This is the discussion we are having. Don't like it. Don't post. Simples.

    Nothing is changing about marriage. Nothing.

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    No
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Marriage is being changed nodin. Thats why were having a referendum :rolleyes:

    Still time wasting and evasive. This is the discussion we are having. Don't like it. Don't post. Simples.


    Why are you against gay marriage phill?


Advertisement