Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Corkfeen · 28-01-2014 1:33pm

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Must be a long list now

Wager on you being added?

efb · 28-01-2014 1:34pm

No

Boa constrictor ftw

Annasopra · 28-01-2014 1:34pm

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

If you believe they're baseless then why respond? Let me tell you why. Because they are not baseless.

The thing is Phil I think everyone is getting frustrated with you because your posts are vague and many of us have actually no idea what your opinions are at all.

lazygal · 28-01-2014 1:35pm

No

Daith wrote: »

No, we will undermine your marriage causing you to get a divorce and adopt your two babies. #gayagenda

I thought that's what the gay agenda was alright. I've also met the one gay person who doesn't want to get married thereby proving marriage equality isn't needed #lucindasbestfriendsaregay.

K-9 · 28-01-2014 1:39pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

The only screaming and shouting is coming from the anti hetrosexual / gay marriage supporters who everyday create new threads on gays, shout down oppenents of gay marriage as bigots or homophobes and puke out a lot of pretenious or evidence that is not universally accepted, and use emotion of "suicide" or bad feelings , to get their point across, not to mention the laughable misguided idea that "everyone is the same". There is nothing more delusional, dishonest and disengenious than a proponent of gay marriage to compare it's position with the black struggle and ban on interracial marriage. I wonder would they be so quick if they were aware of the anti gay views of many of the black leaders of the day?

The gays still haven't pointed out how they will somehow lose / have less dignity because they can't marry but can enjoy legal protections under Civil Partnership

It's a civil rights issue so comparisons to racial equality will be made. Really for me, what it comes down to is, what difference is John and Seamus up the road getting married going to make to me? Nothing. What difference does it make to you?

Daith · 28-01-2014 1:41pm

No

lazygal wrote: »

I thought that's what the gay agenda was alright. I've also met the one gay person who doesn't want to get married thereby proving marriage equality isn't needed #lucindasbestfriendsaregay.

He'll be dealt with at the next meeting of all gays in the world #gaylobby

lazygal · 28-01-2014 1:43pm

No

Daith wrote: »

He'll be dealt with at the next meeting of all gays in the world #gaylobby

#ohbehave.

floggg · 28-01-2014 1:47pm

No

lazygal wrote: »

I thought that's what the gay agenda was alright. I've also met the one gay person who doesn't want to get married thereby proving marriage equality isn't needed #lucindasbestfriendsaregay.

Daith wrote: »

He'll be dealt with at the next meeting of all gays in the world #gaylobby

lazygal wrote: »

#ohbehave.

Wait, now there's a lobby as well as an agenda?

How does one get added to the mailing list or get invited to meetings?

First thing I address when I do is this over-use of hashtags!

lazygal · 28-01-2014 1:49pm

No

floggg wrote: »

Wait, now there's a lobby as well as an agenda?

How does one get added to the mailing list or get invited to meetings?

First thing I address when I do is this over-use of hashtags!

#underanyotherbusiness.

SpaceTime · 28-01-2014 1:50pm

I don't know why we are even tying ourselves up in mental gymnastics about this issue.

A % of people are gay. Trying to pretend otherwise is like trying to argue the earth is flat.

Denying them the same rights as everyone else is just grossly unfair.

To me, it's as ridiculous a debate as the ones we were having at the start of the 20th century where people actually argued against women being allowed to vote.

Also, quite seriously who (that isn't living under a rock) doesn't have a gay family member, friend or colleague?

Sarky · 28-01-2014 1:51pm

No

floggg wrote: »

Wait, now there's a lobby as well as an agenda?

The gay lobby is just behind the gay reception, it's where you can get tea and biscuits in between talks in the gay conference hall. Check your gay agenda, there should be a map on the back beneath the gay harassment policy.

lazygal · 28-01-2014 1:53pm

No

Sarky wrote: »

The gay lobby is just behind the gay reception, it's where you can get tea and biscuits in between talks in the gay conference hall. Check your gay agenda, there should be a map on the back beneath the gay harassment policy.

#wellorganised.

Maximus Alexander · 28-01-2014 2:04pm

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also, quite seriously who (that isn't living under a rock) doesn't have a gay family member, friend or colleague?

Probably nobody, but gay people who have family members or acquaintances who are vehemently opposed to gay rights probably wouldn't feel comfortable telling them. So these people carry on thinking that they don't know any gay people.

rubadub · 28-01-2014 2:12pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

These "some of the tax breaks", care to point out the ones that they deserve to have and those that they do not deserve to have. Explain the reasoning for this view

I can't think of any tax breaks or benefits that I think 2 people should have simply because they have some piece of paper claiming they love each other or whatever they think it means. I am not aware of all the benefits they get though, so perhaps there is one I would not object to, hence why I was being cautious when I said "some"

rubadub wrote: »

I don't believe heterosexual married couples deserve some of the tax breaks they get, so do not think 2 wrongs make a right.

My reasoning is that the piece of paper is a poor indicator of what they might possibly deserve to get.

I similarly do not think people who walk around with a white stick tapping the ground deserve to get the benefits that blind people get. Its a very assumptious system.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Do you not think that a married couple (or even de facto hetrosexual couple with children ) not play a vital role in society?

Not necessarily no, some married couples I see would be little different to 2 close friends sharing a house, no sex going on (for either pair), no kids. I am not against child benefits and possibly some other benefits for some married couples. If you want to give benefits for specific things then find a way to determine if they are eligible and deserving of them.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Sources for this are ? Who said it?

How is it unfair? Society clearly seeks to promote the married family unit for whatever reason

I have seen the "single tax" thing mentioned in another thread, and have heard married couples say they think it is unfair.

You say "whatever reason", so they should spell out these reasons and see if the benefit you want to give is applicable. Not just make extremely broad assumptions.

mango salsa wrote: »

That's a completely separate argument on finances and taxes

I was responding to the person saying

but I still haven't heard of any arguments against marriage equality that are not stemming from homophobia.

Now they have.

SpaceTime · 28-01-2014 2:14pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Probably nobody, but gay people who have family members or acquaintances who are vehemently opposed to gay rights probably wouldn't feel comfortable telling them. So these people carry on thinking that they don't know any gay people.

I think that's genuinely fading away though quite rapidly as more people are being more open about their sexual orientation. I really think the majority of people in Ireland are definitely not homophobic.

A small minority are everything-phobic. You have to watch out for those!

floggg · 28-01-2014 2:30pm

No

rubadub wrote: »

I can't think of any tax breaks or benefits that I think 2 people should have simply because they have some piece of paper claiming they love each other or whatever they think it means. I am not aware of all the benefits they get though, so perhaps there is one I would not object to, hence why I was being cautious when I said "some"

My reasoning is that the piece of paper is a poor indicator of what they might possibly deserve to get.

I similarly do not think people who walk around with a white stick tapping the ground deserve to get the benefits that blind people get. Its a very assumptious system.

Not necessarily no, some married couples I see would be little different to 2 close friends sharing a house, no sex going on (for either pair), no kids. I am not against child benefits and possibly some other benefits for some married couples. If you want to give benefits for specific things then find a way to determine if they are eligible and deserving of them.

I have seen the "single tax" thing mentioned in another thread, and have heard married couples say they think it is unfair.

You say "whatever reason", so they should spell out these reasons and see if the benefit you want to give is applicable. Not just make extremely broad assumptions.

I was responding to the person saying
Now they have.

that's not an argument against marriage equality, it's an argument against marriage - at least state recognition of marriage.

I don't think denying marriage to same sex couples remedies the injustice which you believe to result from the institute of marriage, it just creates a further injustice.

In any event, I think many (but not perhaps all) of the tax benefits of marriage are available to civil partners.

And as for the child related benefits, I think denying them to same sex couples raising children results the child being treated less favorably just because of the gender of their parents.

I also don't think it's an accurate description to say marriage is "just a piece" of paper. While married couples do receive certain benefits and privileges from the State, they also assume certain (potentially irrevocable) obligations to each other - e.g. inheritance, maintenance etc.

So there are commitments and sacrifices that have to be made in exchange for receiving the state benefits. It's a trade off. the State benefits are given as a reward and incentive for entering into life long commitments - which are viewed as beneficial to society.

Single people might be taxed less favourably, but in return they are not tied financially to another person for life. they have their freedom - which i imagine is important to many of the long term couples who choose not to marry.

but that's another thread entirely.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-01-2014 3:50pm

No

efb wrote: »

See ya later look forward to you repeating vague generalisations

I'm sure Phil has indeed flounced off again and isn't constantly F5'ing this thread.

Phil, you're not being forced to discuss this issue, you have free will and can continue to reply on the thread, or not - don't act like you're being forced out, or keep telling us how weary you are of supposedly 'debating'.

Just because something has always been done a certain way it doesn't mean that is the best way.

SpaceTime · 28-01-2014 3:59pm

I think we need to be very careful to make a distinction between religious observances and civil law on these issues too.

Churches and other religious can make up their own minds on religious marriages. However, that shouldn't in any way impinge on civil marriage law.

If the churches had their way those of us who had bad marriages would be stuck married for ever, unable to divorce and banned from marrying again. Irish law accepted that ridiculousness and complete lack of reality for decades. The result was a lot of miserable marriages and people having to literally emigrate permanently if their marriage didn't work out.

How many Irish people ended up basically exiled in Britain, North America etc in the past because their marriage broke down?

I think we need to look at marriage law in pragmatic reality and that means including gay couples because they most definitely exist just like divorcees who want to remarry always existed and weren't some kind of strange monsters either.

Phill Ewinn · 28-01-2014 4:12pm

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Just because something has always been done a certain way it doesn't mean that is the best way.

Someone else who isn't reading the thread but still wants to criticise.

Current law dates from 1890 in the US. A few hundred years over here and less than a thousand across Europe. So no. ''Always been'' doesn't come into it.

The reasons behind those changes are still valid though IMO.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-01-2014 4:18pm

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Someone else who isn't reading the thread but still wants to criticise.

Current law dates from 1890 in the US. A few hundred years over here and less than a thousand across Europe. So no. ''Always been'' doesn't come into it.

The reasons behind those changes are still valid though IMO.

OK only for the last 114 years then, or within living memory at any rate, as I'm sure you'd agree. At what point would your 'argument' cease to be valid? 115 years? 116?

Phill, can you please set out in a couple of sentences what your problem with gay marriage is?

eorpach · 28-01-2014 4:24pm

eorpach wrote: »

Right Phil Ewinn, lets discuss:

For any society or system to function effectively, there has to be checks and balances that protect the rights of the minority. It is for this reason that where there is marriage, there needs to be divorce; where there is a Church, there needs to be a State, where there is an Executive, there needs to be an independent Judiciary, and so on. History is littered with "proof" that minority interests cannot (and should not) be subjugated by the majority. To do so sows the seeds of discontentment that ultimately results in societal upheaval. That much, is, incontrovertible historical fact.

Take your example of marriage working so well for so long Phil Ewinn; why then does every nation on Earth (bar the Holy See and the Philippines) make provision for its dissolution (divorce), including Ireland?

By your token, should the minority Irish population in the majority British State have simply accepted that the Act of Union should be retained, on the basis that the (British) majority considered (from their historical perspective) that the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland "worked" ?? I'm sure if you could ask anybody in Ireland touched by the Famine, they've had felt differently...

The simple fact is that the majority always believes that any system which is constituted in such a way as to be deferential to a majority "works"; until there comes a time when it doesn't. Contrast:
Whites and Slaves

Landowners with the Vote against Tenants without the Vote

Universal Suffrage if you're male vs Democratic exclusion if you're not,

Full-participation in society if you're able-bodied vs lesser participation if you're disabled.

All of the above are examples of "arrangements" which existed for centuries, did they "work"? Should we, the "majority" revert to them???

Consider, by analogy:

You (or a dependent of yours) is physically disabled, and you (or that dependent) are legally denied some of the opportunities that your sibling, (or your sibling's child) take for granted, e.g. full participation in education. Would you be so accepting of the status quo, then? After all, it is only in the past 20 years in this country that this State has actively sought to integrate special-needs children with their able-bodied counterparts in the classroom - we separated physically-disabled children from society by putting them into "special" schools for long enough, should we rollback to that??

My basic point is, every society needs to promote and cherish the position of the minority. It is the hallmark of an enlightened society, and it enriches us all.

Finally, as to your assumption that legislation would be sufficient. Might I ask, do you have any legal training?

The simple fact is that legislation is not a sufficient guarantor of rights under Ireland's parliamentary democratic system, since legislation is ALWAYS to be interpreted by the Courts in conformance with the 1937 Constitution and what the Courts consider to be the prevailing public morality. Add to that the fact that legislation can be changed by any future parliamentary majority; the Constitution cannot. For these facts alone, only a Constitutional amendment stating the clear will of the Irish People is a sufficient legal guarantee for the minority disenfranchised by the prevailing system of marriage, i.e. gay people.

You have the comfort of being a part of a majority in this society on this issue, Phil Ewinn, which puts an added onus on you to consider the perspective of the minority, not to dismiss it. Please do so sincerely when you go to the Ballot Box; do not be so dismissive as to blithely point at "the centuries" and walk away. If you intend to be a sincere and mature participant in democratic society, please behave like one.

(Sorry for such a long post folks, but some people in the majority need the position of the minority spelt out in really tedious detail in order to grasp why the majority-situation is really not a sufficient position in the first place.)

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to.

Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.

eorpach wrote: »

Well I'm sorry if my answer above was too long for you. But the explanation and re-assurance that you so evidently seek is NOT going to come from sound bytes.

Read my explanation above, and this time:

Consider how any of: the abolition of slavery, the extension of universal suffrage, or the advancement of the rights of the disabled, has bettered our world today.

Now, imagine an Ireland with the inverse of each of those.

I realise that you are perhaps too old to grasp first-hand the enrichment brought to society by the last one - co-education of able-bodied and disabled students - best you go away and talk to anyone under 20 for some insight into how much the tapestry of their education was bettered by that sea change, in order to grasp how poorer yours was for the absence of it. And its evident to me that yours was poorer for that; since its in the classroom that most people have their first introduction to the plight of the minority in our world.

The majority rarely listens to being "told" things, Phil Ewinn - life's greatest lessons aren't just about reading, but also about experiencing; hence the wisdom in the old adage, "You actually have to go through something to understand it".

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Now you're comparing apples and oranges. You're asking me to change marriage. Not solve world poverty or something. As I already stated the rights issue can be solved by introducing civil partnership legislation. This will afford same sex couples the same rights and very definately more rights than some married fathers have! Even though they are "protected" by the constitution.
See how this works in real life?

Everyone has rights. The next generation have rights and entitlements too. Its on our watch that these changes will or will not be made. I'd like to hand the next generation a better society. But you haven't explained to me how that is going to happen. How changing a foundation of society will benefit anyone in the long run.

The only person comparing apples and oranges is you, Phil Ewinn.

I simply drew an analogy between the the extension of civil marriage to all sections of society, and the inclusion of all kinds of ability in the one classroom. In particular, I was drawing attention to how massively the able-bodied majority has benefitted from engagement with the disabled minority in the classroom, and how any justification for a long-held State practice of discrimination within the broader educational system has fallen away in the past 20 years. I had hoped that you would be able to grasp the analogy of this point, but alas I over-estimated you.

As regards marriage, and your dogmatic obsession that any change ought to benefit the majority in society, now and into the future, consider the following:

The Irish family law system places paramount importance on the interests of the child, not upon the interests of the parent. This is fact; read any Irish Court judgment on the issue. Aside from the merit as to whether or not the Irish legal framework should be shored up in relation to the guardianship (and I believe that it should), your constant comparison between Gay Marriage and (straight?) Fathers' Rights is both spurious and trite. It is not a case of one or the other, and it is not even a case of one without the other.
This Referendum concerns the rights of Gay Couples, only, and whether the State will extend the same rights and obligations to those relationships as befit the civil marriage of a man and a woman. This Referendum does not concern the interests of the child, nor the laws relating to guardianship. Its approval by the People will have no direct impact on either fathers or children.
As I have already stated, and I state again, in the Irish democratic framework, legislation is no place for civil rights; the Constitution is. Legislation is subject to change, re-interpretation and challenge both by a parliamentary majority, and a vested-interest minority. The system of checks and balances (i.e. Constitutional amendment) is the only way in Ireland to ensure that Civil Rights extend to all, in both this generation and the ones that follow.

And finally, as to your overriding concern for the legacy we leave to future generations by a possible Constitutional re-definition of civil marriage, it is thus:

The love people feel is equal, no matter who you choose to express that love to.

What are we teaching future generations in Ireland if we leave them a legacy of laws that actively discriminate against any section of society? The fact that we are making efforts to equalise rights in society is the reward alone (in terms of legacy). By retaining a difference in terms of marriage status, you are complicit in telling everyone (now and generations-hence) that these two things (straight marriage and gay partnership) are fundamentally different and should be treated differently. That's not a morally defensible position in a democratic society. The benefit of a more inclusive institutional legal arrangement will be a more equal and open society, where everyone is tolerated and welcomed and valued for their contributions, rather than distinguished by their sexuality. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

(As a side note, there's a striking deficiency in your logic in holding up civil marriage as being such a successful institution for hundreds of years, when you're simultaneously lamenting the absence of access-rights for the minority (ergo straight?) fathers to their children. It is the very paradigm of marriage, which you laud, that has created this difficulty for a minority of men in the first place. Its striking though that your concern for one minority being disenfranchised by the State's present definition of marriage does not extend to concern for another minority who are also disenfranchised. This logical dichotomy makes you at best insincere, but at worst, a troll.)

And no, thankfully I'm not asking you to "solve world poverty or something". You'd be too busy arguing in circles with your two elbows to make any kind of positive impact on that whatsoever!

Nodin · 28-01-2014 4:55pm

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Someone else who isn't reading the thread but still wants to criticise.

Current law dates from 1890 in the US. A few hundred years over here and less than a thousand across Europe. So no. ''Always been'' doesn't come into it.

The reasons behind those changes are still valid though IMO.

Why are you against gay marriage phill?

Skylinehead · 28-01-2014 4:58pm

No

Nodin wrote: »

Why are you against gay marriage phill?

La la la la I can't hear you!

EuskalHerria · 28-01-2014 5:23pm

No

RTE have paid the Iona institute compensation for the remarks made. It's awful funny, but it's no joke.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff0e987b97d2fcfad2787f607&id=77e4ec27d3

Nodin · 28-01-2014 5:25pm

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

RTE have paid the Iona institute compensation for the remarks made. It's awful funny, but it's no joke.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff0e987b97d2fcfad2787f607&id=77e4ec27d3

Disgusting, sad and rather pathetic.

floggg · 28-01-2014 5:30pm

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

RTE have paid the Iona institute compensation for the remarks made. It's awful funny, but it's no joke.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff0e987b97d2fcfad2787f607&id=77e4ec27d3

That's sickening.

Iona have effectively ensured RTE will cut out any criticism or questioning of Iona or their motives in the forthcoming debates.

You have to think why they only went after RTE, and not Panti who actually made the comment. If they genuinely felt defamed they would go after him as a matter of principle.

However, that would (a) have their statements subject to scrutiny before a court; and (b) not really do much in terms of controlling the debate around marriage equality and adoption.

humanji · 28-01-2014 5:33pm

EuskalHerria wrote: »

RTE have paid the Iona institute compensation for the remarks made. It's awful funny, but it's no joke.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff0e987b97d2fcfad2787f607&id=77e4ec27d3

Sorry if I missed it, but where does it mention compensation?

diddlybit · 28-01-2014 5:33pm

No

EuskalHerria wrote: »

RTE have paid the Iona institute compensation for the remarks made. It's awful funny, but it's no joke.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff0e987b97d2fcfad2787f607&id=77e4ec27d3

That's shameful. An apology was bad enough, but to use tax payers money to pay off this crowd is unbelievable. I shall write letters to them all and demand some of my pink pounds back.

diddlybit · 28-01-2014 5:35pm

No

floggg wrote: »

You have to think why they only went after RTE, and not Panti who actually made the comment. If they genuinely felt defamed they would go after him as a matter of principle.

They did, as far as I know. He said so on his Twitter account.

humanji wrote: »

Sorry if I missed it, but where does it mention compensation?

From the article: RTE has also agreed to pay damages to the injured parties.

floggg · 28-01-2014 5:36pm

No

humanji wrote: »

Sorry if I missed it, but where does it mention compensation?

ON Saturday Night Live last weekend, presenter Brendan O’Connor read out an apology to Breda O’Brien, The Iona Institute, and writer and broadcaster John Waters after a guest a fortnight before had accused all of the aforementioned parties of being ‘homophobic’.

RTE has also agreed to pay damages to the injured parties

Second paragraph

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments