Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2014 12:35PM

No

NuMarvel wrote: »

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

Never mind that - where the bloody feck did the stretch marks and stitches in me dykey parts come from???? :eek:

Actually...on those receipts...spent a fortune on Transformers in the late 80s early 90s - no child = mint condition collectables = ker'ching quids in

.

Sarky · 02-02-2014 12:40PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Never mind that - where the bloody feck did the stretch marks and stitches in me dykey parts come from???? :eek:

That'll be god's divine punishment for liking muff.

Links234 · 02-02-2014 12:41PM

No

I'm still in awe that anyone can come along here and say with a straight face that Iona aren't the homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed. :pac:

Bannasidhe · 02-02-2014 12:42PM

No

Sarky wrote: »

That'll be god's divine punishment for liking muff.

Barstard! :mad:

Muise... · 02-02-2014 12:43PM

Links234 wrote: »

I'm still in awe that anyone can come along here and say with a straight face that Iona aren't the homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed. :pac:

that's your problem right there. :pac:

*joke! I'm straight, don't sue me straights!

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 12:47PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Never mind that - where the bloody feck did the stretch marks and stitches in me dykey parts come from???? :eek:

Actually...on those receipts...spent a fortune on Transformers in the late 80s early 90s - no child = mint condition collectables = ker'ching quids in .

You lectured me at some point and I was a great student. Can I have some Transformers? Thanks!

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 12:48PM

No

Links234 wrote: »

I'm still in awe that anyone can come along here and say with a straight face that Iona aren't the homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed. :pac:

It's like debating whether McDonald's serve fast food or not really.

david75 · 02-02-2014 12:49PM

No

I used to have bumblebee and Optimus prime. A gayer. Playing with boys toys. What are the chances?

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 12:50PM

No

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's like debating whether McDonald's serve fast food or not really.

It's just healthy people shutting down debate!

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 12:52PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's just healthy people shutting down debate!

But burgers have salad on them, they're good for you dammit!! It's society's assault on the ancient institution of the sandwich.

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:01PM

No

Just after watching the Saturday Nigh show now.

My observations:

* Putting this on the same show as Marty Whelan talking about his hair implants just cheapens the whole debate, as well as the Pussy Riot interview!

* Getting an interview with Pussy Riot was a bit of a coup for RTE. It was a bit of insult to them however to put them on the Saturday Night show and to be interviewed by BOC.

Regardless of your views on them, they got a lengthy sentence for political activism and clearly have a serious commitment to their cause. to put them on show like the saturday night show which is based around Z list celebrities, light fluff pieces and cheap laughs isn't really giving the issue the serious it desires.

at the very least they should have been on the late late show which is a somewhat more serious show - though a prime time interview would have been much better.

they seemed perplexed by the whole thing at times, and BOC wasn't really capable of conducting a bilingual discussion on a weighty issue.

* there is no constitutional bar to marriage equality.

* BOC's repeated utterance that their good name was vindicated was just plain wrong. unfortunately it can be taken as giving the impression Rory was wrong in what he said. which is just plain wrong

* colm o gorman is an excellent speaker

* susan phillips learned from previous appearances that she has to tone back the outrageous bigotry. outside of that she has very little to offer.

* noel whelan doesn't think abuse of school children on the grounds of their perceived sexuality isn't homophobic. wow. just wow.

efb · 02-02-2014 01:02PM

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.

Im not ignoring it it had been mentioned

efb · 02-02-2014 01:06PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

And doesn't mean their right

Filibuster · 02-02-2014 01:08PM

I think we should follow in the example of Jesus and remain virgins till we're at least 33. I think marriage should be sexless, just like Jesus's parents marriage

" and Joseph sat down with Jesus and said 'son never lay with a woman, we don't know what's in there.'" - Like 3:4

hedgehog2 · 02-02-2014 01:18PM

I would be against gay marriage purley because I don't see the point of it sure they have civil partnership is that as good.
Why do the gays have to be like a man and a woman they never will be so no use in pretending they are.
Gay is gay and straight is straight.
I could care less what the gays do as long as it does not bother me but I dont see the pointvin this big struggle for marriage rights.
Plenty of married folk who would rather a civil partnership.
A friend of mine organizes these weddings and he has done a few gay ones,he had two men in and one of them insisted on wearing a dress for the wedding wanted all the girlie treats and acted ss camp as a circus clown on the day.
Why the need to do this,its embarrassing for theguests and laughable for the staff.

david75 · 02-02-2014 01:20PM

No

Oh god.

Not even gonna dignify that stupidity other than to say
'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 01:21PM

No

Is that you Susan?

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:23PM

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.

Well firstly just by looking at wikipedia, there is no evidence anybody from pussy riot was involved in the "chicken" incident.

But I can't honestly believe that you think that anybody would be locked up for three years in a work camp for a protest in a church in any EU member State, or indeed the US, Australia, Canada etc .

And to suggest that they would be put in a psychiatric unit trivialises both their intentions and convictions (regardless of whether you believe in them) and mental health issues.

On your substantive point, you clearly do not appreciate freedom of speech if you believe that it should allow anti-equality supporters to voice their opinion but does not include a right of reply.

Being labelled homophobic does not silence anybody or shut down their argument. instead, it shifts the focus of the conversation onto the speaker and their motives.

if you are willing to insert yourself into a debate as to the status and equality of my relationship as a matter of law you should be able to defend your motives for doing so, even if that means defending yourself against labels you find problematic.

that is not what is happening here - the anti-equality side are instead trying to insulate themselves from any examination or criticism.

I also like the exaggerated and unnecessary use of "mr/mrs/ms" when referring to Panti/Rory in what would appear to be an attempt to (not so) subtly question or undermine his gender. nice

Filibuster · 02-02-2014 01:23PM

hedgehog2 wrote: »

I would be against gay marriage purley because I don't see the point of it sure they have civil partnership is that as good.
Why do the gays have to be like a man and a woman they never will be so no use in pretending they are.
Gay is gay and straight is straight.
I could care less what the gays do as long as it does not bother me but I dont see the pointvin this big struggle for marriage rights.
Plenty of married folk who would rather a civil partnership.
A friend of mine organizes these weddings and he has done a few gay ones,he had two men in and one of them insisted on wearing a dress for the wedding wanted all the girlie treats and acted ss camp as a circus clown on the day.
Why the need to do this,its embarrassing for theguests and laughable for the staff.

You say you could care less what they do, but then go on to support restrictions on what they can do...

We are all on the planet for a short time, let's not make other people miserable while we're here.

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:25PM

No

efb wrote: »

thank Panti for Iona members and RTE's cowardice?

FYP

hedgehog2 · 02-02-2014 01:28PM

They are allowed live together these days,there was a time this was not the case.
They walk openly among us,have there own bars and scene.
Why the big feckin deal over a piece of paper,getting ones knickers in a twist will only add misery to ones life.
Just get on with it

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 01:31PM

No

hedgehog2 wrote: »

They are allowed live together these days,there was a time this was not the case.
They walk openly among us,have there own bars and scene.
Why the big feckin deal over a piece of paper,getting ones knickers in a twist will only add misery to ones life.
Just get on with it

If it's not such a big deal then why are you against it?

hedgehog2 · 02-02-2014 01:36PM

I just think they are pushing this gay thing the wrong way,shoving it down peoples throats demanding we bend over for all their desires right now is not going to change the way it has been for centuries in Ireland.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 01:38PM

No

hedgehog2 wrote: »

I just think they are pushing this gay thing the wrong way,shoving it down peoples throats demanding we bend over for all their desires right now is not going to change the way it has been for centuries in Ireland.

How are you personally bending over if a gay couple get married?

Links234 · 02-02-2014 01:38PM

No

hedgehog2 wrote: »

I just think they are pushing this gay thing the wrong way,shoving it down peoples throats demanding we bend over for all their desires right now is not going to change the way it has been for centuries in Ireland.

Wonderful satire on a homophobe, very clever, I must say

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:39PM

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?

Lol.

Firstly, lawyers will often advise that you should settle an action early for various reasons even if they believe you ultimately have a good chance of succeeding. sometimes for practical, cost, political and other reasons its just easier to pay out fast and move on rather than have to go through with lengthy litigation.

Also, the comment that Iona John Waters are brave and voiceless underdogs fighting to be heard is laughable - given that they both have such media access and power.

Moreover, if you want a good example of people making baseless accusations without being able to back it up, then Iona and John Waters are too very good candidates right there.

J_E · 02-02-2014 01:42PM

No

hedgehog2 wrote: »

I just think they are pushing this gay thing the wrong way,shoving it down peoples throats demanding we bend over for all their desires right now is not going to change the way it has been for centuries in Ireland.

Sorry for wanting to be treated like everyone else.

Sorry for looking too gay at times and causing offence.

Sorry for forcing you to attend Pride, protests, etc

Also, sorry for saying no when the wrong people want to discuss and broadcast in detail if I am going to be either of less or lesser worth in society!

Hope you can survive the trauma. No payouts unless you have lawyers though.

floggg · 02-02-2014 01:44PM

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.

the fact that rte got it wrong on that doesn't mean they should pay out every time a defamation action is launched against it.

nobody is defending on that case - it was an outrageous piece of irresponsible journalism.

Muise... · 02-02-2014 01:44PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

How are you personally bending over if a gay couple get married?

perhaps s/he's angling for an invite to the afters?

Sarky · 02-02-2014 01:49PM

No

I kinda miss Actor. He was always good for a hysterical, ill-informed rant on sodomy and the evils of homosexuality. Totally unafraid to nail his ugly, homophobic colours to the mast.

This wishy-washy 'I'm not homophobic, but...' stuff is just irritating and half-arsed.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments