Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

RayM · 02-02-2014 02:07AM

No

LookingFor wrote: »

Oh, one last thing for tonight - but BoC asking Buzz O'Neill if 'getting beaten up didn't put some institutional homophobia into perspective'...epic, epic face-palm. A little insulting too. BoC needed to be asked where he thought that kind of very violent homophobia springs from.

I'd actually argue that, as far as homophobia is concerned, the Iona Institute (and John Waters and Susan Philips) are worse than whoever beat Buzz O'Neill up. The sort of person who beats someone up for being gay is firstly a violent idiot, and secondly a homophobe. If gay people didn't exist, they'd find someone else to kick the crap out of. David Quinn, Breda O'Brien, John Waters and Susan Philips are reasonably intelligent people. They're smart enough to give it a lot of thought, but they still believe that their religious beliefs are more important than gay people's rights.

david75 · 02-02-2014 02:46AM

No

Panti, tonight in the abbey, on the topic at hand
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152205840339855

eorpach · 02-02-2014 05:21AM

What an extraordinary article, accompanied by some extraordinarily loony quotes from John Waters. That man was never fit to hold membership of the board of the Broadcasting Authority to begin with.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-paid-out-85000-in-homophobe-row-29971734.html

There is nonetheless an irony in the fact that the withholding of Civil Rights never ought to be debated or voted upon by the general public in the first place - that much I do agree with John Waters about!

Nodin · 02-02-2014 08:19AM

No

Stark wrote: »

What about all those lesbian couples with functioning uteri and babies to show for it, I mean "la la la not listening!".

Nope, that's the Dark Lore Of Lesbomancy.

Daith · 02-02-2014 09:15AM

No

NuMarvel wrote: »

The face palm moment of the night was when Noel Whelan said prejudice and discrimination against gay people wasn't homophobic...

My thoughts too and the exact opposite of what Panti was arguing. That a homophobe isn't just a monster who beats up gay people.

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 09:39AM

eorpach wrote: »

... we condition them into believing that that the feelings of love expressed by the majority are superior to those expressed by the minority.

That's not a morally defensible position in a democratic society.

Is that not the very core of a democracy: majority rule, minorities sidelined.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 09:55AM

The love for Pussy Riot is one which shows a lot of ignorance.

These are the people who went into a supermarket and used a chicken to masturbate with, in front of everyone including children.
Had an orgy in a public museum which was also seen by children.

These people would be locked up in most countries, maybe in a psychiatric unit or put in jail, like they were in Russia, but idiots cried political repression, I say if you support Pussy Riot, then try and do that in any country.

We have an idiot in government who talks about the chilling effect on free speech in regards tot he Saturday night show and what Mr/Mrs/Ms Panti said.
He should know free speech comes with responsibility and you can't just throw wild accusations at people and expect nothing as a consequence.
Pat Rabbite shoudl know if we have free speech and a referendum, then people who oppose SSM in a manner that one expects for a referendum on a serious issue, should have a voice and not be labelled homophobic, and this is where John Waters is correct, otherwise if you are not allowed oppose SSM, then why have a referendum if you are not allowed oppose it and if you do, you end up being called derogatory names.

RTE is not capable of fair debates these days, they messed up a presidential election, and like how they allowed a priest to be falsely accused through biased blindness, they were blind to what Panti did on the night of the show.
This is what RTE does, wastes license fee money, supporting their own views and prejudices, it's liberal eye is blind to fairness, which ends up with the state broadcaster paying out money time and time again.

floggg · 02-02-2014 09:57AM

No

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why do people keep ignoring my point that some people believe marriage should only be for a man and a woman and would be opposed to polygamy, not just same-sex marriage, on this basis?

I don't agree with this standpoint but I'm just playing devil's advocate because "homophobe" is a harsh thing to call someone and might not necessarily apply.

We aren't ignoring it.

It's jut not as well made as you think.

As I've said (and you've ignored) you can't treat somebody as unequal as a matter of law just because "it's what I believe."

If you oppose marriage equality you need an objectively justifiable reason. The fact that you are also opposed to polygamy isn't an objectively justify send reason for discriminating against marriage equality.

If you want to deny somebody's rights it's enough to say it's a genuine belief when you can't show any good reason other than it doesn't fit in with how you would like things to be.

It's an imposition of your will on others, for no good reason than how you prefer things.

How is that not arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust etc?

And how can somebody who wants others treated as lesser as a matter of law for no reason other than that's how they think it should be not be bigoted and homophobic - in that they would rather see a minority prejudiced and discrimination then to have their preferred order challenge, even though they can't point to nothing but the happiness with the status quo to justify such continued discrimination.

To put it another way - what would you call a person who claimed not to have anything against black people but just firmly believed that the races should be kept separate?

dark crystal · 02-02-2014 10:00AM

No

I'm actually extremely pissed off that my tv licence fee has contributed to enriching these people.

I'm tempted to do a John Waters and refuse to pay this year on principle.

eyescreamcone · 02-02-2014 10:06AM

No

If you deny rights to a segment of the population that are available to most others (taking into consideration caveats like age etc) then that is discrimination.

Those who discriminate against gays by trying to deny them same sex marriage are homophobic.

All the ah buts...etc from Iona and the other RCC agents won't change that fact one bit!

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 10:06AM

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm actually extremely pissed off that my tv licence fee has contributed to enriching these people.

I'm tempted to do a John Waters and refuse to pay this year on principle.

You can thank Panti for that.

Everyone in RTE must have been asleep that night.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 10:08AM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If you deny rights to a segment of the population that are available to most others (taking into consideration caveats like age etc) then that is discrimination.

Those who discriminate against gays by trying to deny them same sex marriage are homophobic.

All the ah buts...etc from Iona and the other RCC agents won't change that fact one bit!

Women can bear children, men can't, does this mean nature is homophobic when it comes to same sex relationships?

Daith · 02-02-2014 10:08AM

No

Paul McGrath (TD) about decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 "if this Bill is passed, I am concerned about the possible effect on Irish society. Will we now see exhibitions in public by homosexuals holding hands, kissing, cuddling, etc? Is homosexual behaviour to be put on a par with heterosexual behaviour?".

It's now 2014 and this is still what opponents of LGBT rights are still saying.

eyescreamcone · 02-02-2014 10:16AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Women can bear children, men can't, does this mean nature is homophobic when it comes to same sex relationships?

?????
What you talkin about Willis?!!!

If you are against same sex marriage YOU are homophobic.

Gay men and women create children - nature doesn't seem to mind.

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 10:19AM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

?????
What you talkin about Willis?!!!

If you are against same sex marriage YOU are homophobic.

Gay men and women create children - nature doesn't seem to mind.

Just a point of information, there is no way that a Gay couple can create a child naturally.

lazygal · 02-02-2014 10:21AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Just a point of information, there is no way that a Gay couple can create a child naturally.

There's no way a couple who are infertile can create a child naturally. What's your point?

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 10:23AM

lazygal wrote: »

There's no way a couple who are infertile can create a child naturally. What's your point?

Huh? Re-read the posts, you didn't first time.

lazygal · 02-02-2014 10:25AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Huh? Re-read the posts, you didn't first time.

I did. Plenty of couples can't have a child naturally. What difference does it make if they're gay or straight?

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 10:28AM

lazygal wrote: »

I did. Plenty of couples can't have a child naturally. What difference does it make if they're gay or straight?

I never said it made a difference. YOU brought infertility into it!

lazygal · 02-02-2014 10:36AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

I never said it made a difference. YOU brought infertility into it!

You said gay couples can't have a child naturally. Straight couples can't have children naturall sometimes. What's the need to distinguish?

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 10:45AM

lazygal wrote: »

You said gay couples can't have a child naturally. Straight couples can't have children naturall sometimes. What's the need to distinguish?

They can't. I agree. I didn't distinguish, I was replying to a point specifically about gay couples. Again you brought infertility into it and implied something I didn't mention.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2014 10:48AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is that not the very core of a democracy: majority rule, minorities sidelined.

There is more to a democracy than just voting. At it's core, a democracy is about fairness and equality; that no matter who we are, no matter our differences, we are all treated the same. And that guarantee of equality is in our Constitution as well.

So when it comes to recognising the unions of same sex couples, the question that should rightly be asked is why shouldn't they be treated the same as heterosexual couples, not why should they.

eyescreamcone · 02-02-2014 10:51AM

No

Plenty of ways of having a child these days isn't there? Including adoption.

But that's only a distraction from the same sex marriage debate.

If you are against same sex marriage YOU are homophobic!!!!

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 10:58AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Just a point of information, there is no way that a Gay couple can create a child naturally.

lol just lol.

efb · 02-02-2014 11:00AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

You can thank Panti for that.

Everyone in RTE must have been asleep that night.

thank Panti for Iona members cowardice?

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 11:02AM

mango salsa wrote: »

lol just lol.

Do you disagree or is lol the extent of your ability to retort?

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 11:04AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The love for Pussy Riot is one which shows a lot of ignorance.

These are the people who went into a supermarket and used a chicken to masturbate with, in front of everyone including children.
Had an orgy in a public museum which was also seen by children.

These people would be locked up in most countries, maybe in a psychiatric unit or put in jail, like they were in Russia, but idiots cried political repression, I say if you support Pussy Riot, then try and do that in any country.

We have an idiot in government who talks about the chilling effect on free speech in regards tot he Saturday night show and what Mr/Mrs/Ms Panti said.
He should know free speech comes with responsibility and you can't just throw wild accusations at people and expect nothing as a consequence.
Pat Rabbite shoudl know if we have free speech and a referendum, then people who oppose SSM in a manner that one expects for a referendum on a serious issue, should have a voice and not be labelled homophobic, and this is where John Waters is correct, otherwise if you are not allowed oppose SSM, then why have a referendum if you are not allowed oppose it and if you do, you end up being called derogatory names.

RTE is not capable of fair debates these days, they messed up a presidential election, and like how they allowed a priest to be falsely accused through biased blindness, they were blind to what Panti did on the night of the show.
This is what RTE does, wastes license fee money, supporting their own views and prejudices, it's liberal eye is blind to fairness, which ends up with the state broadcaster paying out money time and time again.

If people are going to argue freedom to make horrible nasty statements then they should acknowledge there is a freedom to call them on it.

Good article here on that issue.

www.conorfarrell.com/wordpress/social-issues/freedom-of-speech-vs-freedom-from-consequence

efb · 02-02-2014 11:05AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Do you disagree or is lol the extent of your ability to retort?

are people who cannot create children naturally disbarred from marriage?

efb · 02-02-2014 11:05AM

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0o6ZDQrKc

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 11:12AM

efb wrote: »

are people who cannot create children naturally disbarred from marriage?

No. I never made any such point. I support marriage rights for all. I just hate it when people come out with non factual stuff like gay couples can have kids naturally.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments