Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

1…3334363839…117

Comments

  • #1052
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    No
    Give them just enough rope and they'll do the job for us themselves :)


  • #1053
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    I think above all, Jim Walsh's reference to Tom O Gorman's death as ammunition to blackmail was nothing sort of cheap and deplorable.


  • #1054
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Cydoniac wrote: »
    I think above all, Jim Walsh's reference to Tom O Gorman's death as ammunition to blackmail was nothing sort of cheap and deplorable.

    Which RTE are also used as to the reason why the interview was taken down.


  • #1055
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    Daith wrote: »
    Which RTE are also used as to the reason why the interview was taken down.
    Yes, I think it was at best, vague, and at worst, exploitative.


  • #1056
    cloudatlas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭cloudatlas


    No
    mango salsa wrote: »
    She gets rolled out now and again as a "political analyst" - noone really knows what qualifies her as a political analyst though
    She has long form in this area.

    www.mamanpoulet.com/political-analysis-ala-susan-phillips/

    Back in the 1990s as a member of Wicklow County Council she attempted to stop IGLYO (the International lgbtq youth organisation) from having a picnic in Glendalough because it was holy ground
    On the late late show she also told Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan they are not married.

    I remember watching her on the frontline marriage debate. Everyone on both sides of the discussion conducted themselves with dignity except for her, everything she said was edged with vitriol and cuttingly patronizing. She told them that she wasn't going to stop them from having their 'friendships' but that they were trying to destroy marriage etc.. Vile woman, failed to get into the seanad in 2007 thank god.


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    David Quinn today apparently;
    "When challenged, they can never point to a single quote from anyone involved with the Iona Institute that is genuinely 'homophobic' "

    Is he for real? Like...really?

    Let's do this one more time, for good measure;

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfTCVgpIIAAH0dd.jpg
    JW – “‘This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing; It is a deliberate sabotage of the culture and the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satire…”
    BOB – ““Equality must take second place to the common good”
    DQ – “We’ll pay a heavy price for same-sex unions”

    www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/civilunionweb.pdf
    “The State should not confer on cohabitees a set of rights and obligations that would be the
    functional equivalent of marriage, or something very close to this, as it would seriously harm
    the current special standing of marriage which would in turn be socially harmful, in
    particular to children.”

    They're also doing a donation drive on Catholic Today newspaper. Colm O Gorman has started a counter campaign for donations for Marriage Equality. Good on them.


  • #1058
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Cydoniac wrote: »
    David Quinn today apparently;
    "When challenged, they can never point to a single quote from anyone involved with the Iona Institute that is genuinely 'homophobic' "

    Well that's because of their idea of what homophobia is.

    Of course when challenged the Iona crowd can never point to a single reason why two LGBT people can not get married


  • #1059
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,643 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    No
    Daith wrote: »
    Well that's because of their idea of what homophobia is.

    Of course when challenged the Iona crowd can never point to a single reason why two LGBT people can not get married

    no they can't, other then claiming marriage is for a mammy and daddy, and you've now been told so shut up.


  • #1060
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Cabaal wrote: »
    no they can't, other then claiming marriage is for a mammy and daddy, and you've now been told so shut up.

    Ah but in Breda's own words
    "O’Brien said that her position, which is that a child where possible should be reared by their own mother and father, was “deemed homophobic commentary”.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/breda-obrien-panti-rte-1289588-Jan2014/

    So is she against hetro sexual people who can not have children and adopt from getting married? Why target LGBT people? Or if one LGBT parent is the biological parent can they get married?

    I really hope on this debate somethings just destroys her point that
    "Yet this proposed Bill [Civil Partnership actually] is yet another step towards removing from marriage the defining paradigm of mother, father and child."

    http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/civil-partnership-and-gay-marriage-reprise-by-breda-obrien/

    With the fact that it is not the definition of marriage or that a child is not required for two people to remain married.


  • #1061
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    I like how Iona can pick which quotes they deem homophobic when the blatantly homophobic ones are ignored.


  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,702 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    No
    I think you could replace the word homophobic in the original poll with any of the following and you'd have a similar result:

    nuts
    deluded
    a relic of the past
    eejits
    gob****es
    a waste of organs.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #1063
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    No
    Sleepy wrote: »
    I think you could replace the word homophobic in the original poll with any of the following and you'd have a similar result:

    nuts
    deluded
    a relic of the past
    eejits
    gob****es
    a waste of organs.

    But you can't really. They punch far, far above their weight in terms of media exposure. The Independent and Irish Timesm columns, RTEs programmes and panels, and sundry other media spots are regularly filled by one of their 'patrons'. So while you can replace those words in terms of the views of the Iona 'Institute', I don't think they can be dismissed as a relic of the past, a waste of organs or deluded. They are well funded, highly motivated and quite media savvy in terms of exposure. I don't think they're as easily dismissed as an irrelevance as some might think.


  • #1064
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    lazygal wrote: »
    But you can't really. They punch far, far above their weight in terms of media exposure. The Independent and Irish Timesm columns, RTEs programmes and panels, and sundry other media spots are regularly filled by one of their 'patrons'. So while you can replace those words in terms of the views of the Iona 'Institute', I don't think they can be dismissed as a relic of the past, a waste of organs or deluded. They are well funded, highly motivated and quite media savvy in terms of exposure. I don't think they're as easily dismissed as an irrelevance as some might think.
    That's why I wish more people would take notice, because in the last 2 weeks, they showed they were more than just all talk, and actually directly influenced a State broadcaster, which is very dangerous for both RTE's duty of impartiality and how much further they could go with this level of influence.


  • #1065
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,941 ✭✭✭20Cent


    No
    lazygal wrote: »
    But you can't really. They punch far, far above their weight in terms of media exposure. The Independent and Irish Timesm columns, RTEs programmes and panels, and sundry other media spots are regularly filled by one of their 'patrons'. So while you can replace those words in terms of the views of the Iona 'Institute', I don't think they can be dismissed as a relic of the past, a waste of organs or deluded. They are well funded, highly motivated and quite media savvy in terms of exposure. I don't think they're as easily dismissed as an irrelevance as some might think.

    Was thinking that maybe the reason they are always called to comment for the anti SSM side is that there actually is nobody else making those arguments. The Late Debate show the other night had 2 Ionians on the panel, either they have huge influence or there literally is no one else who wants to do it. amirite?


  • #1066
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    No
    20Cent wrote: »
    Was thinking that maybe the reason they are always called to comment for the anti SSM side is that there actually is nobody else making those arguments. The Late Debate show the other night had 2 Ionians on the panel, either they have huge influence or there literally is no one else who wants to do it. amirite?

    The church reps had plenty to say on what women can or can't do with the contents of their uteruses during the abortion debates. I'm sure they'll have the same amount to say about marriage equality. Two panelists from one tiny body is a very skewed way of 'debating' an issue.


  • #1067
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    My question is whether RTE and other media outlets make it clear that guests are from the institute ?

    If you're a member of a political organisation, or even a business lobby, they're very quick to ensure you're identified as such.

    I think broadcasters have a duty to ensure the public are aware of these things. It's not up to the guests to explain their background, it's up to the programme makers to either put up an on screen title or to explain where the guest is from.


  • #1068
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    My question is whether RTE and other media outlets make it clear that guests are from the institute ?

    Fairly sure that their membership in that excuse for an institute is mentioned yeah.


  • #1069
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    No
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    My question is whether RTE and other media outlets make it clear that guests are from the institute ?

    If you're a member of a political organisation, or even a business lobby, they're very quick to ensure you're identified as such.

    Generally they do but not always

    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



  • #1070
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    My question is whether RTE and other media outlets make it clear that guests are from the institute ?

    If you're a member of a political organisation, or even a business lobby, they're very quick to ensure you're identified as such.
    What do you mean? They always mention who they all are and represent.

    Just a note from another topic which explains a lot regarding this Saturday Night thing tomorrow;

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88761166&postcount=364
    (b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views, except that should it prove impracticable in relation to a single broadcast to apply this paragraph, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other.


  • #1071
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,941 ✭✭✭20Cent


    No
    lazygal wrote: »
    The church reps had plenty to say on what women can or can't do with the contents of their uteruses during the abortion debates. I'm sure they'll have the same amount to say about marriage equality. Two panelists from one tiny body is a very skewed way of 'debating' an issue.

    Church have been pretty quiet about it. A priest campaigning against ssm would be terrible optics I think. Starting to think that the anti ssm side is very small actually.


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    No
    20Cent wrote: »
    Church have been pretty quiet about it. A priest campaigning against ssm would be terrible optics I think. Starting to think that the anti ssm side is very small actually.
    In reality the only voice that is being heard is Iona and their supporters, which isn't a massive group to start with.


  • #1073
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    20Cent wrote: »
    Church have been pretty quiet about it. A priest campaigning against ssm would be terrible optics I think. Starting to think that the anti ssm side is very small actually.

    Nah they haven't been

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-bishops-to-campaign-against-proposal-1.1584955


  • #1074
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    No
    20Cent wrote: »
    Church have been pretty quiet about it. A priest campaigning against ssm would be terrible optics I think. Starting to think that the anti ssm side is very small actually.

    So far. I think they'll ramp up the opposition when the referendum gets going.


  • #1075
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,941 ✭✭✭20Cent


    No
    Daith wrote: »
    Nah they haven't been

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-bishops-to-campaign-against-proposal-1.1584955

    Heard anything from them since then?
    Can't be campaigning too hard.
    Maybe keeping their powder dry for the last few months.


  • #1076
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    20Cent wrote: »
    Heard anything from them since then?
    Can't be campaigning too hard.
    Maybe keeping their powder dry for the last few months.

    We will hear more when the new Family Bill comes up for proper debate and then the actual referendum.


  • #1077
    fire_me
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6 ✭fire_me


    20Cent wrote: »
    Church have been pretty quiet about it. A priest campaigning against ssm would be terrible optics I think. Starting to think that the anti ssm side is very small actually.

    what makes you think its very small ?


    the church are opposed to same sex marriage , that's hardly a secret


  • #1078
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    No
    fire_me wrote: »
    the church are opposed to same sex marriage , that's hardly a secret

    I hope they come out and threaten to excommunicate anyone who votes yes, but I think they are too cute. They've lost this one before it starts, so they'll lose small, not big.


  • #1079
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I hope they come out and threaten to excommunicate anyone who votes yes, but I think they are too cute. They've lost this one before it starts, so they'll lose small, not big.

    They suggested that they would no longer perform the civil marriage part after the wedding if same sex marriage happened.


  • #1080
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Daith wrote: »
    They suggested that they would no longer perform the civil marriage part after the wedding if same sex marriage happened.

    That was a great way of just getting a lot of 'de facto' catholics to decide to just get married in a hotel instead.

    There are a lot more options these days for wedding venues and a lot of people are less religious than you'd think (especially in their 20s-30s when most marriages happen) and many just like the idea of a big pompous venue with plenty of ceremony. It can easily be done in a hotel context too.

    A surprisingly high number of people I know have gone the hotel route, or gone for humanist ceremonies of various flavours.

    The church threatening to refuse to sign and process civil marriage paperwork will simply result in a lot more couples deciding they're more hassle than they're worth and going for the totally civil option.


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    No
    Daith wrote: »
    They suggested that they would no longer perform the civil marriage part after the wedding if same sex marriage happened.

    Oh give me strength!


Advertisement