Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

david75 · 02-02-2014 11:15AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

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.

I know lots and lots of gay people who have had their kids naturally. And no, that doesn't make them bi, before you start labelling and generalising again.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:15AM

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.

That is your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.

Daith · 02-02-2014 11:16AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

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.

That point was never made either. The actual point was that nature doesn't mind what the gays do. Or what anybody does tbh.

Daith · 02-02-2014 11:17AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

That is your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.

That is your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.

Ghost Buster · 02-02-2014 11:17AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

So lets ban marriage for menopausal wimmin!

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 11:18AM

david75 wrote: »

I know lots and lots of gay people who have had their kids naturally. And no, that doesn't make them bi, before you start labelling and generalising again.

Go on. I'm genuinely curious. If you show that agay couple can have their own child naturally then I will stand corrected.

efb · 02-02-2014 11:19AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

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.

can you ref that quote?

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 11:19AM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So lets ban marriage for menopausal wimmin!

Let's not bother reading posts and jump in with stupid points so we can get a few thanks!

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:19AM

efb wrote: »

thank Panti for Iona members cowardice?

RTE wouldn't have paid if their legal advice they had a high chance of winning the case.

Iona and John Water were brave for opposing the state broadcaster who likes to have people on air accusing people, then not being able to back it up, whether falsely accusing a priest of sex abuse, or having people on falsely accusing people of being homophobic, or making false accusations using twitter on a presidential debate.

You would rather RTE got away with accusing people, when it is unable to back up claims?

efb · 02-02-2014 11:20AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Go on. I'm genuinely curious. If you show that agay couple can have their own child naturally then I will stand corrected.

they had sex with a person of the opposite sex I assume

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:20AM

Daith wrote: »

That is your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.

Well in RTE's case they found they were incorrect, going on legal advice.

20Cent · 02-02-2014 11:21AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

RTE wouldn't have paid if their legal advice they had a high chance of winning the case.

Iona and John Water were brave for opposing the state broadcaster who likes to have people on air accusing people, then not bring able to back it up, whether falsely accusing a priest of sex abuse, or having people on falsely accusing people of being homophobic, or making false accusations using twitter on a presidential debate.

You would rather RTE got away with accusing people, when it is unable to back up claims?

They were offered a right to reply didn't take it took cash. V brave.

efb · 02-02-2014 11:22AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

RTE wouldn't have paid if their legal advice they had a high chance of winning the case.

Iona and John Water were brave for opposing the state broadcaster who likes to have people on air accusing people, then not being able to back it up, whether falsely accusing a priest of sex abuse, or having people on falsely accusing people of being homophobic, or making false accusations using twitter on a presidential debate.

You would rather RTE got away with accusing people, when it is unable to back up claims?

RTE didn't accuse anyone, and I would like hit to go go to court, and see Iona defend their homophobia, RTE got scared by lawyers letters

efb · 02-02-2014 11:22AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Well in RTE's case they found they were incorrect, going on legal advice.

lots of legal advice, lawyers differ, Better Call Saul

Daith · 02-02-2014 11:22AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Well in RTE's case they found they were incorrect, going on legal advice.

Yes and the European Justice system found the Irish state liable for abuse despite the Irish courts twice saying they weren't.

RTE are not infallible

efb · 02-02-2014 11:23AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

That is your opinion, it doesn't make it correct.

everything on boards is an opinion!

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:24AM

mango salsa wrote: »

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

Never heard of Conor Farell.

Opposing SSM is not a nasty thing, they said nothing homophobic. Panti made a claim, I am sure RTE searched hard to find a case when John Waters and Iona were going to sue, and could find nothing to support Panti's accusations that would stand up in a court of law.

SpaceTime · 02-02-2014 11:25AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

That's why we have PR -STV voting. It was designed to prevent precisely that. Minority views get proportionally represented in the parliament (in theory anyway).

It's a lot better than a US or British 2-party system and first past the post voting!

The idea was that it would avoid conflicts in what was a very politically divided Ireland in 1921.
It's actually remarkable that FF were so dominant over the decades. We only recently started using proportional representation voting as the system was intended!

FouxDaFaFa · 02-02-2014 11:25AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Well in RTE's case they found they were incorrect, going on legal advice.

Law isn't that simple.

It's likely RTE knew that paying 85,000 would most likely be cheaper than contesting it. Even if they won their legal fees would be expensive.

It's like all those lone farmers in the US who take on Monsanto with what everyone agrees is a legitimate case, only to be bankrupted before the case can make any progress and forcing an acquittal. In your definition Monsanto won the case because they were in the right legally, not just that they were better able to afford it.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:27AM

efb wrote: »

everything on boards is an opinion!

I am sure one can be sued too for what is written on boards.

People here who make the same accusations as Panti made, are opening up boards to be sued given it is a public forum.

J_E · 02-02-2014 11:27AM

No

The fact they paid out a single cent and didn't disclose it to the people is very disappointing and ruins trust in the State broadcaster.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:29AM

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Law isn't that simple.

It's likely RTE knew that paying 85,000 would most likely be cheaper than contesting it. Even if they won their legal fees would be expensive.

It's like all those lone farmers in the US who take on Monsanto with what everyone agrees is a legitimate case, only to be bankrupted before the case can make any progress and forcing an acquittal. In your definition Monsanto won the case because they were in the right legally, not just that they were better able to afford it.

If RTE had a case they believed they could win, they would have taken it to court, and have their costs paid.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:30AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

The fact they paid out a single cent and didn't disclose it to the people is very disappointing and ruins trust in the State broadcaster.

I have listening to RTE radio, and have seriously cut down on their TV service.

It is their blindness due to their liberal views in general that leads to people being accused and then not being able to back it up.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:33AM

efb wrote: »

RTE didn't accuse anyone, and I would like hit to go go to court, and see Iona defend their homophobia, RTE got scared by lawyers letters

They did by not dis-associating themselves on the night from the comments of Panti.
They allowed their TV service as a vehicle to accuse people, and your comment could lead to boards being sued given you are making the same comment as Panti made, but why care about boards...

Billy86 · 02-02-2014 11:33AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I have listening to RTE radio, and have seriously cut down on their TV service.

It is their blindness due to their liberal views in general that leads to people being accused and then not being able to back it up.

RTE? Yeah, good one.

SpaceTime · 02-02-2014 11:33AM

I think it's a bit unnerving for the presenters to know that the station will capitulate like that too.

That will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on any debate.

It's bigger than a single issue too. Where does it leave investigative journalism programmes or heavy hitting political shows?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:38AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think it's a bit unnerving for the presenters to know that the station will capitulate like that too.

That will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on any debate.

Yeah, terrible that it can be used to accuse priests of sexual abuse and then taken to court where they back down given the story is made up.
Terrible that people can be accused on air and the broadcaster doesn't say anything about it not endorsing the views.
Terrible that a lie can be used to change the course of an election.

It is indeed a chilling effect that we pay a license fee to an incompetent broadcaster.

david75 · 02-02-2014 11:42AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Go on. I'm genuinely curious. If you show that agay couple can have their own child naturally then I will stand corrected.

I'm not posting pics of my pals and theirs kids if that's ok. Just know that it can and does happen. I'm quite confused by your assumption that it isn't possible. It happens all the time.
And this is so far away from any logic. Even if they're kids are conceived using IVF or whatever, does that make the child any less legitimate?
Cos it's thinking like that which has us where we are

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 11:42AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah, terrible that it can be used to accuse priests of sexual abuse and then taken to court where they back down given the story is made up.
Terrible that people can be accused on air and the broadcaster doesn't say anything about it not endorsing the views.
Terrible that a lie can be used to change the course of an election.

It is indeed a chilling effect that we pay a license fee to an incompetent broadcaster.

Iona and John Waters fit the definition of homophobia perfectly. Is it not homophobic to want to retain the right to fire teachers for their sexual orientation? This is ignoring their stance on marriage where they believe it will bring about the demise of society.

FouxDaFaFa · 02-02-2014 11:42AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

If RTE had a case they believed they could win, they would have taken it to court, and have their costs paid.

Yes, but how long would it take and how much would they have to pay in the meantime as the multiple cases drag on?

That's a lot of money and it's possible they couldn't afford the investment even if it would eventually be reimbursed if they won.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments