Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

road_high · 02-02-2014 11:42AM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

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

Christ what century do you live in?

Ghost Buster · 02-02-2014 11:46AM

No

A catholic group who follow the teachings of Christ took money from an organisation funded by a (theoretically) majority Catholic populace whos brief is to serve the populace which funds them. Yes. Thats what Christ would have done.

efb · 02-02-2014 11:46AM

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.

Great they can also highlight child abuser like in 'State of Fear" and the BBC News night on Fr Fortune

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:47AM

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

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.

They have plenty of money for overpaid presenters and advertising money should also be increasing again.

efb · 02-02-2014 11:47AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

You don't know the legal system very well do you?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:50AM

efb wrote: »

Great they can also highlight child abuser like in 'State of Fear" and the BBC News night on Fr Fortune

So totally ignore where RTE put out a program based on lies and went to court to defend the lies, when all they had to do was ask the woman if the priest was the child's father and if he had abused her.
The priest before the program went out, said he would do a DNA test, but RTE refused.
He is a priest, he must be an abuser, that can of blindness costs money.
Blindness to disassociate with Panti's views was costly, and rightly so.

The state broadcaster is for everyone, not to push personal views.

SpaceTime · 02-02-2014 11:53AM

Tbh, I've better things to do than go round and around in circular debates on here.

Would you rather a public service broadcaster that does no live programming, no phone ins, no twitter, scripts and edits all content and doesn't do any risky investigative journalism ever?

That's basically the alternative. Things go wrong occasionally and libel actions happen and have to be defended.

They redesigned their entire editorial process after the priest case a few years ago.

I'm really not sure what else they can do tbh.

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 11:53AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

So totally ignore where RTE put out a program based on lies and went to court to defend the lies, when all they had to do was ask the woman if the priest was the child's father and if he had abused her.
The priest before the program went out, said he would do a DNA test, but RTE refused.
He is a priest, he must be an abuser, that can of blindness costs money.
Blindness to disassociate with Panti's views was costly, and rightly so.

The state broadcaster is for everyone, not to push personal views.

I'll happily condemn RTÉ for shoddy investigative journalism. It was awfully handled. However this case has absolutely nothing to do with that, there is plenty of evidence that they are homophobic except you seem to reject the definition of homophobia altogether.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:54AM

efb wrote: »

You don't know the legal system very well do you?

Make an accusation against someone on a public forum or social media, publicly name them, then one can take legal action.

Daith · 02-02-2014 11:54AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The state broadcaster is for everyone, not to push personal views.

Sorry which side has silenced RTE?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:56AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll happily condemn RTÉ for shoddy investigative journalism. It was awfully handled. However this case has absolutely nothing to do with that, there is plenty of evidence that they are homophobic except you seem to reject the definition of homophobia altogether.

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Which would make a referendum on SSM impossible.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 11:57AM

Daith wrote: »

Sorry which side has silenced RTE?

No one silenced RTE, RTE failed on the night to say it didn't endorse the views of Panti.

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 11:58AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

No one silenced RTE, RTE failed on the night to say it didn't endorse the views of Panti.

RTE also failed to say that it definitely didn't endorse the views of John Waters or Breda O'Brien or David Quinn any of the times they were on air...

Kurtosis · 02-02-2014 11:59AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Is opposing same-sex marriage not discriminating against gay people on the basis of their sexuality?

Friend Computer · 02-02-2014 11:59AM

RobertKK wrote: »

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Which would make a referendum on SSM impossible.

Howso?

Daith · 02-02-2014 11:59AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Which would make a referendum on SSM impossible.

For some opposing interracial marriage equals racism.

Which would make a referendum on interracial marriage impossible.

namloc1980 · 02-02-2014 12:08PM

road_high wrote: »

Christ what century do you live in?

Oh is this a game? My turn... Jesus what date is it today?

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 12:09PM

No

namloc1980 wrote: »

Oh is this a game? My turn... Jesus what date is it today?

Dibs, dibs!

Ah Budddha, is it Tuesday?!

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 12:09PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

For some opposing SSM equals homophobia.

Which would make a referendum on SSM impossible.

Explain to me how seeking to retain ability to fire teachers because of their sexual orientation is not homophobic? Iona are homophobic even without their marriage views. Saying that society is doomed because of SSM is homophobic .

AerynSun · 02-02-2014 12:11PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

Explain to me how seeking to retain ability to fire teachers because of their sexual orientation is not homophobic?

Sure, they're all for equality, they don't mind gay teachers. Just once them gay teachers don't actually try for marriage or public recognition of their partnerships! They're allowed have 'friends' and all, ya know?

Muise... · 02-02-2014 12:13PM

Daith wrote: »

For some opposing interracial marriage equals racism.

Which would make a referendum on interracial marriage impossible.

Quite. I think RobertKK meant that a referendum on SSM would be logically and ethically unbeatable, since his idea of debate seems to be one in which no one can answer back outside his strict lalalalalala fingers-in-ears terms. Just don't marry a man, RobertKK, it'll all be grand.

*awaits legal threat and expectation of cowardly payout.

Daith · 02-02-2014 12:15PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

Explain to me how seeking to retain ability to fire teachers because of their sexual orientation is not homophobic? Iona are homophobic even without their marriage views. Saying that society is doomed because of SSM is homophobic .

This is my biggest bloody pet peeve.

People like Iona and others have been against gay rights well before a referendum of marriage was even proposed.

The fact they get to twist their view into "we just support traditional marriages and we are being called homophobes for that" is fcuking wrong and inaccurate.

It's not just marriage. Look at Susan Philips who opposed decriminalisation of homosexuality back in 1993! She had the audacity to say she didn't last night. So she was lying through her teeth but still believed she is "entitled to a good name".

She's not a homophobe cos that's a bad word. Feck off!

david75 · 02-02-2014 12:20PM

No

Just In case it wasn't posted, here's pantis excellent speech from last night. Every word of it is true for every homosexual person in this country. http://theworkingclassheroes.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/panti-bliss-inspirational-speech-at-the-abbey/

Sarky · 02-02-2014 12:22PM

No

The only arguments against SSM that are even close to rational or even just coherent are coming from SSM supporters playing devil's advocate. I find this terribly amusing.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2014 12:25PM

No

david75 wrote: »

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

Damn.

I'll have to phone my 30 year old 'naturally conceived' biological son of two gays and tell him he doesn't exist.. his two children are going to be very upset about this...:(

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 12:28PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Damn.

I'll have to phone my 30 year old 'naturally conceived' biological son of two gays and tell him he doesn't exist.. his two children are going to be very upset about this...:(

I'm sorry to break it to you but you've raised a wisp of air or something.

Daith · 02-02-2014 12:30PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Damn.

I'll have to phone my 30 year old 'naturally conceived' biological son of two gays and tell him he doesn't exist.. his two children are going to be very upset about this...:(

I'm admiring the feck out of Colm O'Gorman for being on these debates and people basically telling him he shouldn't be raising his children. Sheer restraint on that guy.

NuMarvel · 02-02-2014 12:31PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm sorry to break it to you but you've raised a wisp of air or something.

On the plus side, as long as she kept the receipts, Bannasidhe can get her money back for all those birthday and Christmas presents.

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2014 12:31PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm sorry to break it to you but you've raised a wisp of air or something.

Must be. He can't possibly be a figment of my imagination as there is no way in hell I would have imagined a ginger beard.

david75 · 02-02-2014 12:32PM

No

Daith wrote: »

I'm admiring the feck out of Colm O'Gorman for being on these debates and people basically telling him he shouldn't be raising his children. Sheer restraint on that guy.

On that, he is to be admired. I'd lose the reason altogether in that situation.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments