Iona vs Panti

swampgas · 31-01-2014 09:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am tending towards that viewpoint but I can see the attraction to providing alternatives to Iona when it comes to presenting the anti side. If nothing else it would cut into the nice little earner they get every time one of them makes a radio/TV appearance.

There is also the - If we are going to have a adult debate - lets have the bloody adult debate and not stifle the opposition within the Gay community. By wanting to 'silence' that in order to provide a united front are we not also guilty of censoring a minority? This makes me uncomfortable....

I can see what you mean there. However in this particular instance, I think the spotlight needs to be kept on Iona. Anything else right now would be a distraction, the media would be all over it, and the opportunity to put Iona properly on the spot and actually make them say why they are against marriage equality is (IMO) just too good to pass up. As long as they are challenged properly by the interviewer or other panelists, and their position exposed for the sham it is, then I'd hope that Iona would be left digging a deep and public hole for themselves.

WoolyJumper · 31-01-2014 09:31PM

I know this is a little off topic but I feel it needs to be said. Honestly I never watch the Saturday night show and probably wouldn't have heard about it if it wasn't for people on boards discussing it here. I've noticed annoyance/anger about what happened has gone way beyond just gay people... With Straight people complaining to RTE, donating to marriage equality and even talking about going to the protest. I find this really encouraging and even heart warming

I know marriage equality in recent years has had strong support beyond just gay people but I never expected to see so many people playing such an active role in the fight for gay rights/marriage equality. Even small things like speaking up for equality on boards or with family and friends can make a big difference to my life and many others and I just want to say a big thanks to anyone who has played any part, big or small in the fight for equality. It really means a lot

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 09:32PM

Daith wrote: »

That they actively seek (and campaign against) for gay relationships not to be seen as the same as a hetrosexual couple in marriage and to deny them marriage and equality based on their sexuality is discrimination.

I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh just because they think marriage is a man and woman doesn't make them homophobes". It doesn't, it's everything else they do.

Fair enough. That makes it more interesting. I am glad that you agree that a preference for traditional marriage alone doesn't make you homophobic but I wasn't aware of the "everything else".

I shall try to find out more about them with an open mind and I meant what I said if they do discriminate against gays or any other minorities then I will condemn the,.

J_E · 31-01-2014 09:33PM

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 make the time to turn up at the Gaiety on Sunday at 2PM. 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 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.

david75 · 31-01-2014 09:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The people who contacted me are very genuine and some are quite high profile in the LGBTQ Community.

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

While I agree that marriage is an outdated idea, it still doesn't distract for the fact tha equality isn't applicable to all in this country.
And while I appreciate that movements will to be involved, it can only be disruptive to the issue at hand. Abandoning marriage is never going to happen officially in our life time. It is happening culturally and we all know that, and I think Iona and their ilk would better spend their time trying to promote it in other areas(another minefield for them) it won't help this debate at all to bring that movement into it I don't think.

swampgas · 31-01-2014 09:38PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

Sure, but I would suggest that it is an absolutely suicidal tactic to try to argue for marriage equality while simultaneously arguing that marriage is an outmoded institution. It sends a very mixed message, which would be ruthlessly exploited by anyone opposed to equality.

Maybe get equality first, then argue about how relevant marriage is?

Daith · 31-01-2014 09:39PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough. That makes it more interesting. I am glad that you agree that a preference for traditional marriage alone doesn't make you homophobic but I wasn't aware of the "everything else".

Of course not. It's like me saying that two parents raising a child are better than one parent. I'm not anti-single parents. I don't go around and say that single parents are an attack on traditional parents etc.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I shall try to find out more about them with an open mind and I meant what I said if they do discriminate against gays or any other minorities then I will condemn the,.

Please do.

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 09:40PM

SW wrote: »

Why don't you answer my question. How did she deceive anyone with the definition she used?

I've already answered it twice!

She completely omitted "an extreme and..." from what she claimed was the actual definition of homophobia.

Penn · 31-01-2014 09:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've read this about ten times now and you aren't making any sense.

People hating non-Muslims because the haters think they are Muslims fits perfectly into that definition of Islamophobia.

Not if you can't prove they hate Muslims. Your post was in response to someone graffitiing an ad with a Sikh person (which they mistook for a Muslim) by referencing bombs and taxis.

That doesn't prove they "hate" Muslims, nor does it prove an "irrational or intense dislike". Yet you deemed it to be "obviously Islamophobic".

Daith · 31-01-2014 09:44PM

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe get equality first, then argue about how relevant marriage is?

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

david75 · 31-01-2014 09:46PM

Daith wrote: »

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

Maybe that's the idea

Daith · 31-01-2014 09:48PM

amdublin wrote: »

Who's going on sunday?

My banner is going to say something along the lines of:

Iona - stop getting your panti's in a twist about other people's lives.

or else just a simple fek off iona institute!

Yep I'm going to head in hopefully. I'm generally quite a chilled guy but the whole thing has made me angry.

Delirium · 31-01-2014 09:49PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already answered it twice!

She completely omitted "an extreme and..." from what she claimed was the actual definition of homophobia.

This is where I have the problem with your claim of deception.

"strong dislike of homosexuals"

"extremely strong and irrational dislike of homosexuals"

both are referring to people that dislike homosexuals, the only difference being metrics. Both have a strong dislike of homosexuals.

Corkfeen · 31-01-2014 09:54PM

Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.

Homophobia: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/homophobia?showCookiePolicy=true

The Iona Institute and John Waters consider same sex marriage as something that will destroy the fabric of society. Do you view such a view to be homophobic, BB?

Daith · 31-01-2014 09:56PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.

Or merriam-webster

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

As Panti said homophobia can also be quite subtle which has kinda being lost in the whole thing.

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:06PM

You can look up every approved definition of the word if you want, but Rory gives by far the most concise and realistic explanation of it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19q67h_rory-oneill-the-saturday-night-show-11-1-2014_gaylesbian

Hotblack Desiato · 31-01-2014 10:08PM

robindch wrote: »

If any of that shower had any shred of decency, then, on receipt of the offer, they'd have passed the money onto some charity.

Careful now - promotion of religious bulls**t somehow qualifies as a 'charitable' purpose.

Daith wrote: »

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

Yeah, this, at least some viewers wouldn't know or care where you were coming from or why, but just take it as confirmation of JW's 'teh gheys want to destroy the institutions of society' nonsense.

Hotblack Desiato · 31-01-2014 10:10PM

robindch wrote: »

Once more unto the breach for Brendan O'Connor:

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/

"the really smart and ballsy guys are the guys who are buying [property] when no one else is" - Brendan O'Connor, July 2007

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:29PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The people who contacted me are very genuine and some are quite high profile in the LGBTQ Community.

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

I don't Ireland is quite ready to give marriage the chop by any stretch, though. Civil marriage is readily available as a function. All that needs to be done is to allow same sex couples to avail of it, and tweak the relative laws appropriately.

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 10:30PM

SW wrote: »

This is where I have the problem with your claim of deception.

"strong dislike of homosexuals"

"extremely strong and irrational dislike of homosexuals"

both are referring to people that dislike homosexuals, the only difference being metrics. Both have a strong dislike of homosexuals.

I am afraid your argument is completely without merit and this is turning into a game of Chinese Whispers.

She didn't even scale down the definition from "extremely strong" to "strong" as you mistakenly claim.

This is what she falsely claims The Oxford dictionary definition of homophobia is:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.

This is the actual definition:

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

I am not trying to trick you here, the deception is staring you right in the face. She has removed two crucial components to the definition. This aversion according to the definition must be both "extreme" AND "irrational".

Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people is homophobic, her lie is to tell us that the Oxford dictionary defines it in the way that suits her argument.

Daith · 31-01-2014 10:32PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people,

This is exceptionally nitpicky. If she used merriam-webster there would be no issue. It's hardly her personally defined definition.

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 10:33PM

Corkfeen wrote: »
Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.
Homophobia: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/homophobia?showCookiePolicy=true
The Iona Institute and John Waters consider same sex marriage as something that will destroy the fabric of society. Do you view such a view to be homophobic, BB?

What are you telling me for? I didn't release the statement and choose the definition, she did.

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 10:36PM

Daith wrote: »

This is exceptionally nitpicky. If she used merriam-webster there would be no issue. It's hardly her personally defined definition.

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:39PM

An incredibly weak argument - I really don't know what you're trying to prove here apart from a game of semantics. This is the kind of thing I mean when talking to friends about people trying to disassemble real discussion on this important issue, with fairly invalid criticisms.

Likewise to the people going through exact dictionary terms - this is the problem we have with the word 'homophobia' today. Trying to fit it into a neat box. It doesn't work like that. It's a more fluid term.

Delirium · 31-01-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid your argument is completely without merit and this is turning into a game of Chinese Whispers.

She didn't even scale down the definition from "extremely strong" to "strong" as you mistakenly claim.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, BB. Aversion = strong dislike. I'm purposely using that definition of aversion to attempt to explain why I'm confused with your claims of deception.

This is what she falsely claims The Oxford dictionary definition of homophobia is:

This is the actual definition:

I am not trying to trick you here, the deception is staring you right in the face. She has removed two crucial components to the definition. This aversion according to the definition must be both "extreme" AND "irrational".

Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people, her lie is to tell us that the Oxford dictionary defines it in the way that suits her argument.

It's not her personally defined definition, other online dictionaries have her definition.

Having a strong dislike (aversion) to homosexuals in general is irrational to a lot of people. not including extremely is just metrics. It all still boils down to a strong dislike of homosexuals. You can of course there is a subtle difference between what she said and what you provided as the definition, but not enough to say it was a lie/deception.

It can easily be explained as she was paraphrasing.

Daith · 31-01-2014 10:40PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

Ok, have a read of this with Iona where they as part of their submission to the Constitutional Convention uses a report to argue against same sex marriage and removes the part where the report says

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents. -

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/03/29/iona-institute-blatantly-misrepresents-child-trends-research-in-submission-to-constitutional-convention/

Oh and the person who coined homophobia said it means this

[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family"

Brown Bomber · 31-01-2014 10:44PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

An incredibly weak argument - I really don't know what you're trying to prove here apart from a game of semantics. This is the kind of thing I mean when talking to friends about people trying to disassemble real discussion on this important issue, with fairly invalid criticisms.

What is an incredibly weak argument? Evidently Daly lacked the courage of her convictions and considered her own argument "weak" seeing as she apparently made an active decision to water down the definition which her whole argument was based on.

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

Delirium · 31-01-2014 10:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

How do you know her copy of Oxfords dictionary doesn't say exactly what she said? Much like various other online dictionaries do? Have you examined all editions of Oxfords dictionary?

Daith · 31-01-2014 10:46PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

What is the real defintion? Why would the Oxford one be the real definition when an American coined the term and an American dictionary says this

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

It's incredibly nitpicky and you can't claim there's a definite meaning of homophobe

Lou.m · 31-01-2014 10:47PM

Not sure if this is right for this forum but I just thought you guys would get a laugh!

And now for the Angelus ....

Iona vs Panti

Comments