Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

eorpach · 30-01-2014 03:10AM

Daith wrote: »

Breda O'Brien: “Equality (for gay people) must take second place to the common good”

I have no sympathy for her

The "common good" is inclusive equality - hence the reason that the Equal Act was put in place in 2000 - to prevent discrimination in Ireland on the basis of Gender, Civil Status, Family Status, Age, Race, Religion, Disability and Sexual Orientation.

There is nothing good about an equality which is excludes a minority.

eorpach · 30-01-2014 03:17AM

Daith wrote: »

You'll get a generic reply that they can't respond because of legal issues.

Anybody who takes the time to write to RTÉ to complain about any topic pertaining to one of their broadcasts should copy their complaint to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

The BAI are currently acknowledging complaints received on the issue of The Saturday Night Show:

More than 100 complaints about Panti appearance and RTÉ apology

jank · 30-01-2014 03:18AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Ireland was pretty unbelievable before the 1990s in terms of how conservative the laws around all sorts of things, particularly contraception were.

We were quite literally up there with the most conservative places on the planet and it was really causing us serious issues internationally.

I know personally of people who wouldn't move here / live here because of it, so didn't invest here. This is talking to friends of my parents, older colleagues etc who would have been involved in business in the 1970s/80s.

For our generation (I certainly wasn't around in the 1970s and was a very young kid in the 80s), we don't have any idea notion of just how screwy Ireland was at that time. It had managed to take 1920s British conservatism and add a load of extra stuff to it.

I know for many of us when we think back to the 1980s it was all nostalgia and the Den.. zig & zag and Bosco and all those positive things. But it was set against a backdrop of some of the most horrendously conservative legislation on contraception, reproduction, divorce etc that have probably been seen in any Western Democracy ever.

Can you imagine from a 2014 Irish perspective if you were considering investing in several European countries and had to move to one of them and one of them would actually insist that you couldn't use contraception with your own partner and that you'd have to 'accept whatever children God sent you'....
Meanwhile, you couldn't get divorced, even if your marriage had fallen apart or even worse, if your marriage had turned violent and you'd an abusive spouse.
And you couldn't be gay/bi either and (even if not very heavily enforced) you risked prosecution for it..
Meanwhile, the place was over-run with nuns and priests doing things that you'd normally expect to be state / social services e.g. education, health, aspects of welfare etc.

It makes modern day Russia sound quite liberal.

You'd run a mile!

I'm very, very glad Ireland has snapped out of it and changed radically. But, I think we need to be extremely careful that we don't look back on those olden days with some kind of green tinted glasses. They were absolutely awful times (particularly the 50s-80s) that saw Ireland run many of our brightest and best out of the country and many of them have never returned.

Think about it though : how many Irish citizens ended up packing their bags and moving to the US, the UK, parts of continental Europe etc because they just couldn't stick it here or, because they had a kid outside marriage, needed to get divorced, were LGBT etc

We (and I use that term to refer to people from that era rather than this era) exiled those who didn't fit in. That's a pretty horrible thing to have done. They were basically denied their right to be Irish and I think we have a hell of a lot to make up for.

I see this narrative thrown out many times where the general jest of it is “Ireland was a pseudo fascist state run by the church” It makes great airplay and of course is very popular sentiment by many (just look at the thanks it gets). However, what you state is either misleading or plain wrong.

I think generally Irish people are massively insecure where they downplay their achievements and highlight their failings. I don’t want to sound like a broken record but it seems it is drilled into us from early on that Ireland is bad; things are going to get worse before they get better, everyone is out to get you and you basically have to cheat your way to success. When you start with a post-colonial past, add some insecurities and a huge dose of begrudery then you get this culture of ‘We can’t do anything right’.

This absolute cynicism and fatalism is in my opinion the greatest impediment to Ireland growing up and becoming a modern nation state that can stand shoulders to shoulder with the rest (and feeling comfortable) without people sniping at the background. A quick visit to this website or the journal comments section anytime Enda opens his mouth or appears at an international summit is a clear indication of this. The greatest example of all can be the time when Eamon Dunphy went on the Late Late show a year or two ago to state to the country that Ireland is a dump, a kip and to get out if you are young. To coup de grace were the audience members actually clapping in agreement.. I was shocked by this. No other country in the world would have had that reaction.

In summary your post is just a continuation that the Ireland of the past was terrible, awful, prying, judgemental, moralistic, well just Irish without any historical objectivity or examination. Anyone who has read Angela’s Ashes will get what I talking about. Irish people are not interested in objectivity when it comes to the past, they just want to feel guilt and negativity. I will list points below.

First of all most people left Ireland due to economic reasons first and foremost. Millions left these shores for work and nothing else, yet you seem to suggest that whole groups of people were summarily exiled from the Island by (who? Some shadow organisation?) because of their social standing. I debated this topic with other posters where the same point was made and I asked for statistics to back up the point. Can you come up with any statistics that back up your point, namely that “Ireland run many of our brightest and best out of the country and many of them have never returned” How many were run out of the place purely on social grounds and not economic ones? I think of a few authors maybe but that is about it. You ask the question ‘how many’. Well how many indeed? How many are we talking about here?

Not for me to play down being ‘different’ growing up in Ireland in the times but do you think it would have been much different elsewhere. Do you think a Gay kid growing up today in rural Australia, in the arse end of nowhere like Broken Hill wants to get out at first opportunity to a place like Sydney and live in a place that share the same values and outlook on life? Why do homosexuals gravitate to certain cities like San Francisco, Berlin, Sydney, Amsterdam, London. You think given the choice a gay kid today in the UK would rather stay in his home town of say Crewe or Inverness instead of moving to the big bright lights of London and all the joys that comes with it? Little Britain directly makes fun of this concept with the ‘only gay in the village’ skit.

I have previously critised Ireland for missing out on the post WWII liberal movement that swept through most of the western world. Its roots had its origin in post independent Ireland where efforts were made do de-Angloise the state therefore remain as static as possible, forging a unique ‘Irish’ identify away from Britain and resisting any change be it economic, foreign relations or social. Multiple stakeholders are to blame for that, including the RCC but also to blame are the concept of Irish Republicanism, Party politics, culture and of course the Irish people themselves. Irish people do not do ‘Classical Liberalism’. It was our entry into the EEC that spurned on huge social changes that culminated to what we have now which baring one or two notable exceptions grants liberal policies on society that you will find in most other western democratic countries. We caught up fast.

However, we also need to judge Ireland fairly by the times and not retrospectively as its historically dishonest. You say that Ireland was the ‘most conservative democracy ever’. Yet the UK was just as conservative in many ways. They had laundries for single mothers; divorce was legal (but hugely frowned upon, read up on the abdication crisis), contraception only became fully legal in the 1960’s. It was illegal in most states in the US to marry outside your race (even ¼ black or 1/8 Native American) up until the end 60’s but I remember seeing some laws to this affect being on the books in some states until the 80’s. Wasn’t fun if you were black there either (Jim Crow Laws). Or how about Australia and its white only policy that ended in the mid 60’s? All of these were western democratic states. If one cherry picks facts they can make almost any state look totalitarian.

Of course let us not forget that during much of the 20th century that Europe was in the grip of totalitarianism from Fascism and Communism. One should be quite rightly proud that Ireland never descended that far into barbarism. We may have been conservative (much of Europe was at that time) and puritan but we never engaged coups, take overs, street fighting, mobs roaming the streets and we never shipped off minorities to be gassed/shoot/starved and slaughtered in their thousands to achieve purity of race or ideology. Hence why I have to take umbrage with the comment that Ireland back then would make modern Russia look great. This is a deliberate statement meant to mislead. The true comparison would be to compare Ireland of the 1930’s or 1950’s to Russia of the same time. Would you swap? Certainly not! Therefore you may as well compare Ireland of the 1950’s to the Cook Island of today. It’s an utterly meaningless comparison designed to render emotion rather than historical accuracy.

J_E · 30-01-2014 03:20AM

No

eorpach wrote: »

Anybody who takes the time to write to RTÉ to complain about any topic pertaining to one of their broadcasts should copy their complaint to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

The BAI are currently acknowledging complaints received on the issue of The Saturday Night Show:

More than 100 complaints about Panti appearance and RTÉ apology

Yep. It's a bit inconvenient, but all it takes is to forward the complaint and response to complaints@bai.ie and mention that the complaint and RTE response is enclosed. I think I might do one better than this though and write a couple of letters. I have a friend who is really going all out with it.

jank wrote:

Yes, moving on. Lets not discuss what we think Marriage should actually entail and how to improve for all couples. Beating a hobby horse is much easier. One doesnt require to think about the matter and form their opinion.. moving on indeed.

Yawn

lebowskilite · 30-01-2014 03:22AM

No

Yes they are.

jank · 30-01-2014 03:23AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Moving on...

Yes, moving on. Lets not discuss what we think Marriage should actually entail (Lets discuss the Gay part, not the Marriage part apparently) and how to improve it for all couples including same sex couples. Beating a hobby horse is much easier. One doesnt require to think about the matter and form their opinion.. moving on indeed.

Nodin · 30-01-2014 03:24AM

No

jank wrote: »

Yes, moving on. Lets not discuss what we think Marriage should actually entail and how to improve for all couples. Beating a hobby horse is much easier. One doesnt require to think about the matter and form their opinion.. moving on indeed.

Well, what should it entail then?

Turtwig · 30-01-2014 03:41AM

K-9 wrote: »

This'll only get worse with a referendum, we have to have equal representation as per the McKenna judgement, that creates problems as was seen during the children rights referendum when you've very few politicians on the no side. You're giving unelected, biased, highly funded self interest groups a lot of air and tv time.

It's how Declan Ganley became such a big name, but still failed politically and democratically. Vested interest groups can buy radio, newspaper and tv time if they've enough funds. It's a very American system at the minute, I don't believe that was the intention of Patricia McKenna when taking the case.

One thing really common with debates where arguments are nothing more than gut instinct and emotional appeal is the fall back on pointing out personal abuse from the opposing side. I'd love to see a graph on percetage of time spent by Iona and Co. in the media referring to liberal bias, censorship and personal abuse. They actually choose their sound bytes rather well.

I'd also like to see a graph of Iona's time in the media compared to other self interest and lobby groups.

eorpach · 30-01-2014 03:47AM

jank wrote: »

I see this narrative thrown out many times where the general jest of it is “Ireland was a pseudo fascist state run by the church” It makes great airplay and of course is very popular sentiment by many (just look at the thanks it gets). However, what you state is either misleading or plain wrong.

I think generally Irish people are massively insecure where they downplay their achievements and highlight their failings. I don’t want to sound like a broken record but it seems it is drilled into us from early on that Ireland is bad; things are going to get worse before they get better, everyone is out to get you and you basically have to cheat your way to success. When you start with a post-colonial past, add some insecurities and a huge dose of begrudery then you get this culture of ‘We can’t do anything right’.

This absolute cynicism and fatalism is in my opinion the greatest impediment to Ireland growing up and becoming a modern nation state that can stand shoulders to shoulder with the rest (and feeling comfortable) without people sniping at the background. A quick visit to this website or the journal comments section anytime Enda opens his mouth or appears at an international summit is a clear indication of this. The greatest example of all can be the time when Eamon Dunphy went on the Late Late show a year or two ago to state to the country that Ireland is a dump, a kip and to get out if you are young. To coup de grace were the audience members actually clapping in agreement.. I was shocked by this. No other country in the world would have had that reaction.

In summary your post is just a continuation that the Ireland of the past was terrible, awful, prying, judgemental, moralistic, well just Irish without any historical objectivity or examination. Anyone who has read Angela’s Ashes will get what I talking about. Irish people are not interested in objectivity when it comes to the past, they just want to feel guilt and negativity. I will list points below.

First of all most people left Ireland due to economic reasons first and foremost. Millions left these shores for work and nothing else, yet you seem to suggest that whole groups of people were summarily exiled from the Island by (who? Some shadow organisation?) because of their social standing. I debated this topic with other posters where the same point was made and I asked for statistics to back up the point. Can you come up with any statistics that back up your point, namely that “Ireland run many of our brightest and best out of the country and many of them have never returned” How many were run out of the place purely on social grounds and not economic ones? I think of a few authors maybe but that is about it. You ask the question ‘how many’. Well how many indeed? How many are we talking about here?

Not for me to play down being ‘different’ growing up in Ireland in the times but do you think it would have been much different elsewhere. Do you think a Gay kid growing up today in rural Australia, in the arse end of nowhere like Broken Hill wants to get out at first opportunity to a place like Sydney and live in a place that share the same values and outlook on life? Why do homosexuals gravitate to certain cities like San Francisco, Berlin, Sydney, Amsterdam, London. You think given the choice a gay kid today in the UK would rather stay in his home town of say Crewe or Inverness instead of moving to the big bright lights of London and all the joys that comes with it? Little Britain directly makes fun of this concept with the ‘only gay in the village’ skit.

I have previously critised Ireland for missing out on the post WWII liberal movement that swept through most of the western world. Its roots had its origin in post independent Ireland where efforts were made do de-Angloise the state therefore remain as static as possible, forging a unique ‘Irish’ identify away from Britain and resisting any change be it economic, foreign relations or social. Multiple stakeholders are to blame for that, including the RCC but also to blame are the concept of Irish Republicanism, Party politics, culture and of course the Irish people themselves. Irish people do not do ‘Classical Liberalism’. It was our entry into the EEC that spurned on huge social changes that culminated to what we have now which baring one or two notable exceptions grants liberal policies on society that you will find in most other western democratic countries. We caught up fast.

However, we also need to judge Ireland fairly by the times and not retrospectively as its historically dishonest. You say that Ireland was the ‘most conservative democracy ever’. Yet the UK was just as conservative in many ways. They had laundries for single mothers; divorce was legal (but hugely frowned upon, read up on the abdication crisis), contraception only became fully legal in the 1960’s. It was illegal in most states in the US to marry outside your race (even ¼ black or 1/8 Native American) up until the end 60’s but I remember seeing some laws to this affect being on the books in some states until the 80’s. Wasn’t fun if you were black there either (Jim Crow Laws). Or how about Australia and its white only policy that ended in the mid 60’s? All of these were western democratic states. If one cherry picks facts they can make almost any state look totalitarian.

Of course let us not forget that during much of the 20th century that Europe was in the grip of totalitarianism from Fascism and Communism. One should be quite rightly proud that Ireland never descended that far into barbarism. We may have been conservative (much of Europe was at that time) and puritan but we never engaged coups, take overs, street fighting, mobs roaming the streets and we never shipped off minorities to be gassed/shoot/starved and slaughtered in their thousands to achieve purity of race or ideology. Hence why I have to take umbrage with the comment that Ireland back then would make modern Russia look great. This is a deliberate statement meant to mislead. The true comparison would be to compare Ireland of the 1930’s or 1950’s to Russia of the same time. Would you swap? Certainly not! Therefore you may as well compare Ireland of the 1950’s to the Cook Island of today. It’s an utterly meaningless comparison designed to render emotion rather than historical accuracy.

A hugely thought-provoking assessment of why we are who we are.... fair play.

efb · 30-01-2014 04:24AM

No

1000 posts in and the result seems conclusive.

J_E · 30-01-2014 04:29AM

No

efb wrote: »

1000 posts in and the result seems conclusive.

There's really not a shadow of doubt, to be honest. Stacks and stacks of evidence - You only have to flick through their press releases or member statements to prove it easily.

I'll give them one thing - they have a lot of restraint.

Annasopra · 30-01-2014 08:08AM

No

jank wrote: »

I wrote a paragraph on the concept of marriage and how it’s now looked upon as a romantic notion is very new. This was ignored as people are not actually interested in examining or discussing marriage itself, what it means, what it was and what it will be in the future or indeed what it should be. Maybe Starkey is right, marriage is an outdated concept but we stick to it via nostalgia and tradition. People are certainly not interested in looking and examine ways to stop marriages or unions from breaking down with the self-evident results of children being permanently psychology damaged as a results. I have raised these points before. NOBODY cared to discuss them. Much easier to raise the pitch forks and beat a hobby horse. All anyway seems to want to talk about it is "Iona are bad!! m'kay".

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting the lgbt community should campaign against heterosexual marriage breakdown?

efb · 30-01-2014 01:20PM

No

@qikipedia: The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice. – MARK TWAIN

efb · 30-01-2014 01:46PM

No

Sen Avril Power addresses the Seanad
http://youtu.be/Xz-8KiUNcPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz-8KiUNcPE

eorpach · 30-01-2014 02:51PM

I think we can all expect to hear a LOT more from the Iona Institute on the airwaves going forward, following this progressive announcement by Government today:

Government begin bid to allow same-sex couples to adopt

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 02:57PM

No

That's great news, and an issue that really sure that should be sorted out before the referendum.

Sarky · 30-01-2014 03:34PM

No

Senator Jim Walsh was banging on in defence of the Iona Institute. It might be worth remembering that he's the same guy who complained back in 2009 that he was no longer allowed to call gay people 'fairies'.

I bet he's totally not homophobic either though.

eorpach · 30-01-2014 03:39PM

diddlybit wrote: »

That's great news, and an issue that really sure that should be sorted out before the referendum.

Yes, but this Bill is intended (according to the Minister for Justice) to take the "won't somebody please think of the children!" hyperbole out of the Referendum debate.

So Iona will use its passage as an "early warning" exercise in advance of next year's Marriage Equality Referendum. I predict heated debate, alongside dire warnings about the impending destruction of Irish Society...

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 03:47PM

No

eorpach wrote: »

So Iona will use its passage as an "early warning" exercise in advance of next year's Marriage Equality Referendum. I predict heated debate, alongside dire warnings about the impending destruction of Irish Society...

It's already being interpreted as a government conspiracy to get a 'Yes' vote in the referendum.

About two weeks ago, I saw one Tweet that argued that same-sex adoption would put children in danger. The basis for this was a terminally ill woman who was scared to die because there was gay people waiting to take her children. This was of course, not backed up by a source. :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2014 03:55PM

No

eorpach wrote: »

I predict heated debate, alongside dire warnings about the impending destruction of Irish Society...

I predict lots of wittering by Iona: letters to the editor, columns in their pet papers, mass panel attacks on RTE, but the difference is that this is legislation, not a referendum and the only vote that matters will be in the Dail.

Which will pass with a huge majority. Will anyone in the Dail vote up against it?

Knasher · 30-01-2014 03:58PM

No

diddlybit wrote: »

About two weeks ago, I saw one Tweet that argued that same-sex adoption would put children in danger. The basis for this was a terminally ill woman who was scared to die because there was gay people waiting to take her children.

Gay people keep terminally ill woman alive.

floggg · 30-01-2014 04:01PM

No

jank wrote: »

And why do they think it’s not equal? To extrapolate on that their actual message is more nuanced (surprise , surprise) by saying that heterosexual relationships are unique in the manner because normally children arise from such a union. Physically gay couples cannot naturally have kids. They can of course adopt, foster, surrogacy options .etc.. but they themselves cannot 'make' a child by having intercourse the same way as heterosexual couples do. This is a plain fact unless some weird gene altering therapy comes to market in the future.
Maybe they think this because it’s the will God, or the well-trodden ‘Don’t mess with nature’. The latter is kind of Darwinian ironically.
You can of course disagree with this saying that what is important to a child is a loving stable secure household in which to grow up in. Doesn’t matter if its two guys, two girls or one of each at its head. I am somewhat in that agreement. However, I also think depending on the situation, the child, the environment, the culture that having a father/mother who take up their respective traditional roles as parents is not far wrong either. Who is to say what is best or better? What we do know is that the breakdown of marriage, single mothers trying to raise kids without a father in tough neighbourhood creates huge amount of social problems down the line especially with young men. One just has to look at inner city London and inner city American neighbour hoods to see the mess this has created.

I wrote a paragraph on the concept of marriage and how it’s now looked upon as a romantic notion is very new. This was ignored as people are not actually interested in examining or discussing marriage itself, what it means, what it was and what it will be in the future or indeed what it should be. Maybe Starkey is right, marriage is an outdated concept but we stick to it via nostalgia and tradition. People are certainly not interested in looking and examine ways to stop marriages or unions from breaking down with the self-evident results of children being permanently psychology damaged as a results. I have raised these points before. NOBODY cared to discuss them. Much easier to raise the pitch forks and beat a hobby horse. All anyway seems to want to talk about it is "Iona are bad!! m'kay".

A couple of things on this.

Firstly, with regard to the evolution of marriage, I think you will find few people who would tend to disagree with the way marriage has evolved and that it is now based on a equal partnership and is a legal relationship which is rooted in consent and choice.

I think that there is little hope of that trend reversing without a dramatic shift in society and culture, and an abandonment of the concepts of consent, free will and equality of the sexes, or indeed of the modern view of children as deserving protection and support.

the previous versions of marriage (in Christendom at least, as well as ancient Rome and Greece) were based on a model which viewed wife and child as property and chattels of the father, and was a means of securing said property.
hence the approval of marital rape etc.

It was also irrevocable (at least in ireland) leading to countless incidents of spouses being trapped by law in abusive and unhappy relationships).

So if you want to have a discussion around that point, please make a substantive point to start it off. because unless you are advocating a return to that approach, its difficult to see what direction the discussion should take.

As for the anti-equality side's emphasis on child rearing and family etc, I will start by saying I can understand how people can have those concerns, and I think that given most of the country was raised in a two parent, opposite gender household, its only natural that we would see that as the natural order and be wary of deviations from that.

So I don't criticise anybody who, without being in possession of relevant knowledge and facts on this issue, has concerns about a deviation from that type of household as an environment for children.

there is of course countless research which indicates that children raised by same sex couples do just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples, and that it is the provision of a stable, loving and supportive home that matters rather than the gender of the parents.

If somebody is not in possession of that type of information, I don't criticise them for personally preferring what the traditional family model which they see as more natural. as long as they are willing to evaluate the evidence before making being asked to vote and make their decision based on the evidence rather than their gut feeling or religious preferences, then i have no issues on them and certainly would not feel them to be necessarily homophobic.

That is however very different from a person who is opposed to marriage equality and who refuses to evaluate the evidence before making a decision on the issue, or who refuses to change his opinion even when the evidence in presented to them.

then you have to feel they are acting not that their opposition is not really one based on any legitimate concern, despite any nuanced argument they may put on the issue, but one of animosity, discrimination and homophobia.

worse still are the likes of Iona who not only remain privately opposed to marriage equality despite being confronted with evidence which negates their "concerns" for children and/or society, but who actively campaign to prevent marriage equality and other lgbt advances (including civil partnerships).

Indeed, not only do they ignore the evidence which is presented to them, they engage in the manipulating information and studies to try and artificially buttress their arguments. for example, their submission to the constitutional convention has widely been criticised for manipulating the findings of at least one study in this manner - despite (as far as i recall) the authors of the study cautioning that it should not be used in that manner.

so while to the uninformed their arguments seem reasonable, once it is considered in conjunction with the available data on the issue you see it is unfounded. and they know that the scientific data and research is against them on the issue and yet their minds will not be changed.

so the argument that they are driven by legitimate concerns are a nonsense - when they concerns are shown to be unfounded their opposition remains. you can only conclude that they are driven by an opposition to LGBT families and LGBT relationships themselves. and what is that if not homophobia.

And lastly, the focus on pro-creation is a bit misleading and an over-simplification.

Yes, same sex couples cannot pro-create. but you don't need to be able to pro-create to RAISE a child. their are countless heterosexual couples who cannot pro-create for whatever reason but yet can and do raise children successfully - whether through IVF, surrogacy, adoption or fostering.

the ability to pro-create is not a pre-requisite to being a parent, nor is it any sort of indicator for parental ability. there are plenty of great parents who can't pro-crreate and plenty of people who can pro-create but can and do make terrible parents.

the fact that two men or two women cannot independently reproduce does not mean that they should be precluded from raising children. as mentioned above, the research shows that they can be just as good parents as two straight people.

so why should we deny them the same opportunities that infertile straight couples have?

so again, i can't really believe arguments along this line were genuine. it's an appeal to "gut instincts", "natural order" and all those other intangibles that are really just a fear or opposition of something different to the norm.

if the anti-equality side were really concerned with the impact marriage equality would have on children and family, their focus would be on ability to RAISE a child.

however, they know they will lose that so the obscure the fact but focusing on the pro-creation aspect which ultimately doesn't have any impact on their ability to actually raise a child.

eorpach · 30-01-2014 04:02PM

Not many people know this, but Ireland's Gay Switchboard had to be called "Tel-A-Friend" when it launched 40 years ago this year, because the powers-that-be prohibited the word "gay" being used in the Irish telephone book.

We really have come incredibly far as a society in such a short space of time. Well, many of us have...

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 04:07PM

No

Knasher wrote: »

Gay people keep terminally ill woman alive.

There's always a silver lining.

eorpach wrote: »

Not many people know this, but Ireland's Gay Switchboard had to be called "Tel-A-Friend" when it launched 40 years ago this year, because the powers-that-be prohibited the word "gay" being used in the Irish telephone book.

It must have been the subliminal messaging the gays use to recruit. Well-spotted on their side.

floggg · 30-01-2014 04:08PM

No

eorpach wrote: »

The "common good" is inclusive equality - hence the reason that the Equal Act was put in place in 2000 - to prevent discrimination in Ireland on the basis of Gender, Civil Status, Family Status, Age, Race, Religion, Disability and Sexual Orientation.

There is nothing good about an equality which is excludes a minority.

Well i think thats an oversimplification.

there's nothing good about an equality which excludes a minority without good cause.

if for example somebody could establish that children were disadvantaged by being raised in a same sex household, then i would be personally opposed to adoption by gay couples, and i think the common good would demand that they be prevented from adopting.

the evidence shows however that that is not the case. therefore to exclude same sex couples from adopting is an unjust discrimination which does not serve the common good.

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 04:12PM

eorpach wrote: »

Not many people know this, but Ireland's Gay Switchboard had to be called "Tel-A-Friend" when it launched 40 years ago this year, because the powers-that-be prohibited the word "gay" being used in the Irish telephone book.

We really have come incredibly far as a society in such a short space of time. Well, many of us have...

Not to mention that 40 years ago you'd have been lucky to get through at all! There were 2 year and longer waiting lists for telephones! The phone service was operated directly by a government department (P&T) and the network was largely based around clapped out 1920s and 30s exchanges. Many of the rural ones weren't even automatic. So if you needed to speak to that Tell A Friend line from a small village the local operstor would have had to put you through!!

Only Dublin, Cork and a few lucky locations had vaguely modern exchanges from what I've read. Meaning you could actually reliably dial your own calls..

I read someone's masters thesis on this stuff once! While researching something on Ireland's economic growth in the 70s.

Also when premium rate numbers were introduced on the digital network in the 1980s, the most popular services were for dialling into prayers!!

We've come a long way in many respects!

The Fr Ted Priest Chat 0898 sketch wasn't too far off

J_E · 30-01-2014 04:16PM

No

Sarky wrote: »

Senator Jim Walsh was banging on in defence of the Iona Institute. It might be worth remembering that he's the same guy who complained back in 2009 that he was no longer allowed to call gay people 'fairies'.

I bet he's totally not homophobic either though.

In November 2009, Walsh claimed that women working outside the home is a major cause of depression in young people, and also expressed annoyance that he couldn't call gay people "fairies".

What a pleasant person...

floggg · 30-01-2014 04:47PM

No

Knasher wrote: »

Gay people keep terminally ill woman alive.

Go team!

diddlybit · 30-01-2014 04:57PM

No

Apparently RTE have received 847 complaints about the apology and the payment now.

SpaceTime · 30-01-2014 05:37PM

That's a fair few and I am sure they'd have to take it quite seriously with that volume of complaints.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments