Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

What could make this thread more head-wrecking?

Israel!

*throws confetti*

penguin88 wrote: »

You are discriminating against people on the basis of their religion, specifically Judaism: that is the definition of antisemitism.

Nope, the jews have inter-married for so long they're a race. They say so too. I'm discriminating against a people for taking advantage of a weeker peoples and holding them down with mass violence. I don't condone Palestnian behaviour but I understand their anger.

Sponge25 wrote: »

I don't like Jews in general because they're very hateful people. They think the world owes them something because of the holocaust. ... I don't dislike individual Jews, I dislike them as a group.

Wow.

I know a good number of Jewish people, and the ones I know are not hateful at all. They certainly don't think the world owes them anything. So I don't know how you think you can say that about 'Jews in general'.

Anyway, I'm sure my friends will be delighted to hear that you're prepared to like them as individuals while you hate them as a group. That's really not at all hateful or anti-Semitic of you, it's very generous.

:rolleyes:

Sponge25 wrote: »

Nope, the jews have inter-married for so long they're a race. They say so too. I'm discriminating against a people for taking advantage of a weeker peoples and holding them down with mass violence. I don't condone Palestnian behaviour but I understand their anger.

Ok so you're discriminating on the basis of race rather than religion, it's still antisemitism. If you had said "I don't like Nigerians in general because they're very hateful people" would you deny that that's a racist statement?

Sponge25 wrote: »

It'd be ignorant to say every single last individual jew is hateful. I'm talking about their culture. Anyone who doesn't think they're doing wrong doesn't know the situation, and those who know the situation and don't think it's wrong to do what they're doin to the Palestinians is evil.

Do you see any difference between Jewish and Israel? Do you see any difference between IRA and Irish? Between Nazi and German? Between Republican and American? Between Stalinist and Russian? Between Maoist and Chinese? Between Khmer Rouge and Cambodian? Between Fascist and Italian? Between Unionist and Northern Irish?

Skobie 69 wrote: »

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.

No offence, but I think you have entirely missed the point of Rory O'Neill's discussion of homophobia and the type of subtle ways homophobia can manifest itself. The gay community itself will acknowledge that at varying times gay people can be guilty of various forms of homophobia themselves. to be honest its quite hard not to absorb some homophobic tendencies from modern society.

Racism for example isn't confined to the KKK and violent assaults, but can include subtle acts like job discrimination, racial profiling and institutional acts racism like education or social welfare policy. It isn't always obvious or overtly racist but it is very real and its effects leave an obvious impact on those effected.


In the same way homophobia isn't just confined to Russian type laws or skin heads bashing people outside the george. homophobia can also be of the subtle, unsaid form.

Acts or polices which are based on the belief that gay people or their relationships are lesser or inferior or are some form of danger to children or society are very much ground in a subtle form of homophobia.

I don't mean that as an attack on you for holding such beliefs, but I cannot accept the argument that State recognition of my my relationship on the same terms as yours or other straight people somehow diminished or threatens your relationships or others like it. Or that if mine is recognised as a marriage, straight people won't want to marry - because if they gays can, what's the point?

Those forms of arguments all have as their root that gay relationships are somehow less special or important. of course the argument is often defined in the opposite manner - talking about the "special nature" of straight relationships or their need for "protection." But more special than or protection from what?

Gay people and same sex relationships.

So to honest, I can't really see how you can argue that gay people need to be denied equality in order to "protect marriage" or straight relationships without their being some subtle form form of discrimination against gay people.

As Rory said though, having homophobic tendencies doesn't make you some form of monster. in the same way we all have racist tendencies, we can all have homophobic tendencies. the thing is to recognise them for what they are and try and address them.

and that's what's most galling about the Iona legal action - Rory's discussion was very measured and well reasoned.

Also, as far what is and is not homophobia, it can be a bit rich for straight people, as a number of public commentators have, whom have never experienced it in its various form or suffered its consequences, to try and tell gay people what is and is not homophobia.

it is essentially like a group of white men telling black people what should be considered racist (as apparently happened on Fox news recently) or women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Skobie 69 wrote: »

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.

In fairness, it's all well and good to talk about a rational debate but you have indicated you are against same sex marriage because of you're desire to protect the traditional marriage.

But tell me how exactly does a no vote protect or support the traditional marriage.

the implication from that type of argument is that a yes vote weakens or threatens straight marriages? how does that occur? or why exactly do same sex couples need to be denied marriage to protect straight marriage?

and civil partnerships don't confer all the same rights and benefits of marriage.

but even if they did, what would be the benefit of maintaining two separate but equal systems, whose only real benefit (to me) seems to mark out the relationships as different and non equivalent.

Cydoniac wrote: »

Oh, not Susan Philips again. If you want a case example of a toxic, nasty peson who has obvious judgements against gay people (she couldn't acknowledge that two men or two women could be in a relationship) I don't know why she's being used as opposition for any other reason than she's full of hate. Genuinely. Check the Primetime debate on gay marriage if you haven't seen it, it has the two of them.

Expect arguments along the lines of 'you're taking my marriage away from me', 'think of the children', and stuff like 'gay marriage is another part of the deconstruction of marriage and society'. Its disappointing because there will be no proper debate, just two people shouting over two people in a controlled manner to get one ups over each other.

To be honest I would be delighted to see her on every panel on this issue. she makes our argument for us - she exposes opposition to marriage equality as nothing but sheer prejudice and homophobia.

given that she is there only alternative to iona on the no side, you can understand why they have iona on so often.

The Black Oil wrote: »

I've only heard Philips debate once - full of self-importance.

It's the way she referred to same sex relationships as "friendships". She isn't homophobic btw!

floggg wrote: »

To be honest I would be delighted to see her on every panel on this issue. she makes our argument for us - she exposes opposition to marriage equality as nothing but sheer prejudice and homophobia.

given that she is there only alternative to iona on the no side, you can understand why they have iona on so often.

I agree. This woman is a textbook illustration of somebody who has an irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

She will be utterly incapable of supressing her bigoted point of view, which (in contrast to some professed by Iona) does not "merely" emanate from a belief that Society will be letting down children with the ushering in of equal marriage, but more fundamentally, emanates from her overriding concern that societal recognition of homosexual "friendships" will irrevocably destroy the one "flesh" belief she holds dear regarding the "fundamentally heterosexual" nature of her love.

Quite simply, her opinions will be nakedly and effortlessly taken to task by Colm O'Gorman, as amounting to an "irrational aversion".

Given the panellists selected for this debate, I cannot see how on earth the conservative right could possibly make any headway with the electorate tonight, and I for one am delighted that Iona have for once been excluded from a panel debating an important social issue.

Bring on the "debate".