Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Days 298 wrote: »

Why are they allowed to call themselves an Institute. They are lobbyists not scholars or researchers. Its misleading to the average person when a survey or report is cited and is made by The Iona Institute. Credible name for a sickening organisation

AFAIK there's no legislation governing groups who call themselves institutes in Ireland.

There is in Britain, which unfortunately lends IONA undeserved credibility because of our proximity.

Cydoniac wrote: »

There is no naming convention in Ireland for the word Institute. I could set up the Institute of Apples and Oranges and it would be fine.

Obviously the next thing the gays do after defining marriage is to define what an institute should be.

Cydoniac wrote: »

That's the job of everyone, not just gay people.

Well obviously gay people will be running the world according to Iona think!

Days 298 wrote: »

Why are they allowed to call themselves an Institute. They are lobbyists not scholars or researchers. Its misleading to the average person when a survey or report is cited and is made by The Iona Institute. Credible name for a sickening organisation

They really should be identified in the media as something like "The Catholic lobby group, Iona Institute'

Even twitter is taking a stand.

@RTE is the first account that shows up when you search for Iona!!!

Days 298 wrote: »

Id go with Brian Dobson "And now we are joined by the Extreme Conservative Catholic Iona Institute/Idiots"

I think that might just make them rather upset, particularly in the legal manner though.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Is this a job for the Public Accounts Committee?
They're kinda the new super-heros of the Dail! (I say that with my tongue in my cheek)
Should anyone wish to raise any issues about public moneys with them :
Here's the current membership list:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/public-accounts/members/

If RTE are spending public money, it would surely be within their remit to look into it?

I think it is outside their remit because RTE doesn't under scrutiny from the comptroller and auditor general

9959 wrote: »

Do you think that the Iona Institute is homophobic?........

Perhaps a tad.

Nothing left to see here folks. :pac:

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But that's ok once it's in a religious way?

It's not like being a real homophobe is it?

Easy Tiger, I was trying to use understatement as a humorous way of agreeing with the proposition posed in the thread title.

Q. Is the Pope a Catholic?
A. Probably

That type of thing.....ah forget it.

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's important to put both RTE and Iona under a critical spotlight as they pose something far more dangerous than an unbalanced debate. They are fostering a negative attitude towards homosexuality, and in particular, by playing such an usual gravity on the word 'homophobia', turning it from a word that is important in use by the gay community and serves a specific function to something meaningless and with an excessive impact - the word is not supposed to be used in that context. The most important discussion about this very topic, the one Ireland needs to hear about - has been inexplicably blacked out.

If you can at all, I would really ask you to find time to turn up at the Gaiety/Kings St on Sunday at 2PM for the march. We need to show that we do not accept this carry-on in today's day and age and that we are no longer remaining passive about either Iona's weak facade of well-meaning, nor RTE's unexplained 2 weeks of events, the payout, the no comments, the continued deception. For goodness sake, this isn't even a print media issue at the moment, the only place stories are thriving and surviving are on Twitter and The Journal.ie. This is a terrible state to be at in terms of keeping our voices heard, and a cruel plot to discredit and dismiss them from our State broadcaster, The Times & The Independent (the 'Patron' papers). This really is a serious issue now, and if you are gay/lesbian, or someone who understands the importance of equal rights, this is something that you should be investigating and thinking about.

I think you make an important point about the dumbing down of the word homophobia but it's those who support gay marriage that have been responsible for the reclassification as to what is homophobic & what is not.
The definition of homophobia is to have an irrational hatred but there are many including myself who support gay rights & civil partnership but would be classed as homophobes now because of our wish to protect the traditional institution of marriage in order to act as a bulwark against the societal onslaught against the family.
I don't harbour any hatred towards anyone because of their sexual inclination or indeed to anyone whether or not they agree with me & if as seems likely that gay marriage will become part of Irish law then fine. I'm not a member of the Iona Institute or have the time or inclination to join such a group. However there is a debate to be had about the knock on effect of societal changes constantly attacking the traditional family unit, the effects of which are constantly decried on this forum & I hope this debate will be allowed, however looking at some of the posts above...I strongly doubt it.
If this is what homophobia is, then truly homophobic acts - such as some of the legal changes in Russia persecuting homosexuals - will get lost in the hue & cry.
Finally, I think you're well wide of the mark when it comes to media outlets in this country with regards to any possible anti-gay bias. With or without your march you can rest assured that RTE, the Irish Times, the Indo et al will all come out firmly in support of gay marriage come referendum time.

Cydoniac wrote: »

It's important to put both RTE and Iona under a critical spotlight as they pose something far more dangerous than an unbalanced debate. They are fostering a negative attitude towards homosexuality, and in particular, by playing such an usual gravity on the word 'homophobia', turning it from a word that is important in use by the gay community and serves a specific function to something meaningless and with an excessive impact - the word is not supposed to be used in that context. The most important discussion about this very topic, the one Ireland needs to hear about - has been inexplicably blacked out.

If you can at all, I would really ask you to find time to turn up at the Gaiety/Kings St on Sunday at 2PM for the march. We need to show that we do not accept this carry-on in today's day and age and that we are no longer remaining passive about either Iona's weak facade of well-meaning, nor RTE's unexplained 2 weeks of events, the payout, the no comments, the continued deception. For goodness sake, this isn't even a print media issue at the moment, the only place stories are thriving and surviving are on Twitter and The Journal.ie. This is a terrible state to be at in terms of keeping our voices heard, and a cruel plot to discredit and dismiss them from our State broadcaster, The Times & The Independent (the 'Patron' papers). This really is a serious issue now, and if you are gay/lesbian, or someone who understands the importance of equal rights, this is something that you should be investigating and thinking about.

jill_valentine wrote: »

I have to laugh, you're trying exactly the same tactic Iona does. "Homophobia" does not require you to string people up in the street or deface their houses - all you need to qualify is to have an irrational fear, hatred or aversion to gay people. If you want to try to deprive gay people of a fundamental social function, for no reason you can rationalise, then this is exactly the trait you are demonstrating.

It is, by definition, homophobic to suggest that gay families pose a threat to the "traditional family unit". There is no credible basis or even reasoning for the statement, therefore it is irrational.

It is, by definition, homophobic to suggest that gay marriages somehow threaten straight ones. There is no credible basis or even reasoning for the statement, therefore it is irrational.

You do not have the moral authority to lecture gay people what "true" homophobia is when you do not recognise its basic manifestations. That is true of RTE, it is true of individuals.

A lot of definitions there, absolutely nothing to do with my post. I clearly stated that I had no fear, hatred or aversion but still had another point that felt that needed to be debated & hey presto...I'm a homophobe. First line in your argument, even though I clearly laid out that I was none of those. So you proved my point....there can't be any rational debate about side issues around the proposed referendum.
Second line.....I "want to deprive people of their fundamental social functions".....what part of my support for Civil partnership or indeed same sex unions didn't you understand there. Civil partnership & civil unions are meant to address all fundamental social functions.
And you went on....."gay marriages threaten straight ones" ......I'm not sure what post your replying to - you quoted mine, but you're replying to a whole other post. I never said " gay marriages threaten straight ones", they don't.
My post had nothing to say about gay or straight marriages or gay vs straight marriages, but was about a wider debate on the institution of the family.
What is proposed in the referendum is a fundamental change to the currently defined institution of marriage which like it or not has been the backbone of society for thousands of years & whatever side you're on, some of these changes will be good some not good as has happened with every referendum on the family & this isn't just a referendum on homosexual rights, but is also a fundamental referendum on the family.
For instance I supported the referendum on divorce, I felt it necessary where a marriage had broken down, but still even though I strongly supported it & I was & am today delighted it passed, even then I understood the knock on effect it would have on society, some good some bad. Why? Because they were properly debated at the time. That's the kind of debate that's been deliberately stifled when people paint those who wish a broader debate on the referendum as homophobes.
Finally, your last accusation " lecturing gay people on what true homophobia is" again from some whole other post you've read in your head when you were replying to mine. Maybe you've guessed I'm a realist not an idealist. However idealistic you want to look at homophobia, whatever strands of debate you want to stifle or label as homophobic, your still left with the reality that when you broaden a definition you weaken its clarity. If you want to define those who support gay rights & civil partnership but may want a broader debate on marriage & the family, which by the way includes some of those in the gay community, as homophobic then all acts of homophobia will inevitably be dumbed down.