Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 03:29PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Errors have appeared in peer reviewed studies.

And they get pointed out when discovered. Now have you got some research that supports same sex parents being inferior?

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 03:31PM

No

brent_popey wrote: »

guilty as charged , still I have a vote all the same , to reiterate , im ok with gay marriage , im opposed to gay adoption

But why?

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 03:33PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

And they get pointed out when discovered. Now have you got some research that supports same sex parents being inferior?

No, I am busy researching stocks to see where I should put my money.

Sometimes research can be based on not enough information.

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 03:35PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I am busy researching stocks to see where I should put my money.

Sometimes research can be based on not enough information.

There's 30 years plus of research, there's an abundance at this point.

Friend Computer · 02-02-2014 03:38PM

brent_popey wrote: »

guilty as charged , still I have a vote all the same , to reiterate , im ok with gay marriage , im opposed to gay adoption

But gay adoption isn't going to be part of the referendum, in fact it'll be coming into law before the referendum and in fact is not itself being put to a referendum so voting 'no' on the gay marriage referendum isn't going to change that.

If you're planning on voting 'no' to stop gay adoption I hope you'll realise that it won't have any effect on that.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 03:40PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

There's 30 years plus of research, there's an abundance at this point.

Then you have to look at who is doing the research.
The views of the people doing the research.
Who they are reporting to and so on.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 03:47PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Then you have to look at who is doing the research.
The views of the people doing the research.
Who they are reporting to and so on.

I presume the reason you keep shifting the goalposts rather than acknowledging the research is because you've done all this.

EuskalHerria · 02-02-2014 03:50PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Then you have to look at who is doing the research.
The views of the people doing the research.
Who they are reporting to and so on.

And have you looked at the research to explain this baseless paranoia on the research?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud scepticism in most forms. However this appears to be paranoid and without any cause as you already mentioned you have t actually looked for any evidence.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 03:58PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I presume the reason you keep shifting the goalposts rather than acknowledging the research is because you've done all this.

One can blindly accept all research into whatever if they want, whether that is same sex adoption has no effects on the child, or it has effects on the child.
Whichever side of the argument in regards to research, the same rules apply.

Mickeroo · 02-02-2014 04:02PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

One can blindly accept all research into whatever if they want, whether that is same sex adoption has no effects on the child, or it has effects on the child.
Whichever side of the argument in regards to research, the same rules apply.

So that's a " no I have not " then.

Muise... · 02-02-2014 04:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

One can blindly accept all research into whatever if they want, whether that is same sex adoption has no effects on the child, or it has effects on the child.
Whichever side of the argument in regards to research, the same rules apply.

Quite. This is why one accepts research that is peer-reviewed. One does not accept Iona's selective reference to debunked, inconclusive or incomplete studies.

RobertKK · 02-02-2014 04:03PM

EuskalHerria wrote: »

And have you looked at the research to explain this baseless paranoia on the research?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud scepticism in most forms. However this appears to be paranoid and without any cause as you already mentioned you have t actually looked for any evidence.

I listened to anecdotal evidence by people who were adopted by same sex couples, the evidence was inconclusive in my opinion, it could simply depend on how the child feels about having two people of the same sex rather than one of each sex
For some children it works no problem, for others the lack of a mother or father is a problem.

floggg · 02-02-2014 04:07PM

No

floggg wrote: »

So what exactly is your point and the source of your opposition?

I'm asking genuinely because you are asserting that being opposed to marriage equality is not the same as being homophobic.

Can you therefore set out a rational and reasoned justification for opposition to marriage equality, and actually demonstrate the benefit rather than just making vague references.

in what tangible way does denying same sex couples marriage rights benefit society and/or in what tangible way does giving them the right to marry hurt society.

See this is why people don't believe that opposition to marriage equality is rooted in some form of prejudice or belief that gay people and their relationships are lesser.

there is never any credible attempt to explain their opposition in a reasoned and constructive manner. only vague unsubstantiated references to protecting the family or children - but never any demonstration of how or why denying marriage equality can or will achieve that.

efb · 02-02-2014 04:35PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Then you have to look at who is doing the research.
The views of the people doing the research.
Who they are reporting to and so on.

Accredited universities

seenitall · 02-02-2014 04:37PM

No

II and their ilk are on a collision course with reality with this one, and I want to have a front row seat when that happens!

Friend Computer · 02-02-2014 04:57PM

People keep going on about how Iona are in for a rude surprise and how they're in a minority and, to be honest, I'm a little fearful that the result won't be as clear cut. Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if it was but--and I'm probably wrong for doing this--if this thread is anything to go by, there's a lot of bile and hatred out there still.

No matter what happens, they'll spin it to suit themselves - people were bullied, they were misled, doing it to fit in, "liberal agenda", etc.. And it's not their followers I care about, it's the gullible people who'll be taken in with such tripe.

Even now, after Iona took a suit against RTE, people are claiming calling homophobes as such is an attempt to stifle debate, ignoring that Iona are the ones who used the courts to do so! That's the kind of attitude that has to be faced. How do you argue against that kind of dogmatism?

RobertKK wrote: »

I listened to anecdotal evidence

If ever there was an oxymoron.

B0jangles · 02-02-2014 05:01PM

No

The American Academy of Pediatrics (they represent 60,000 professional who work in the pediatric field) are in favour of gay marriage and gay parenting.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Supports-Same-Gender-Civil-Marriage.aspx

Their mission statement:

"The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults. To accomplish this, AAP shall support the professional needs of its members. "

But I suppose they are actually secretly a gay-rights pressure group who are only pretending to care about children, eh?

FouxDaFaFa · 02-02-2014 05:07PM

No

Friend Computer wrote: »

People keep going on about how Iona are in for a rude surprise and how they're in a minority and, to be honest, I'm a little fearful that the result won't be as clear cut. Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if it was but--and I'm probably wrong for doing this--if this thread is anything to go by, there's a lot of bile and hatred out there still.

I think it will pass if everyone eligible to vote actually makes the effort to go out and vote. But I predict a huge mobilisation/scare-mongering campaign by certain groups to get the more conservative voters to the stations.

Even if the referendum fails, how can we sustain the status quo without undermining our discrimination laws?
After all, we are currently discriminating legally because of sexuality.

Maximus Alexander · 02-02-2014 05:12PM

No

Friend Computer wrote: »

People keep going on about how Iona are in for a rude surprise and how they're in a minority and, to be honest, I'm a little fearful that the result won't be as clear cut. Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if it was but--and I'm probably wrong for doing this--if this thread is anything to go by, there's a lot of bile and hatred out there still.

No matter what happens, they'll spin it to suit themselves - people were bullied, they were misled, doing it to fit in, "liberal agenda", etc.. And it's not their followers I care about, it's the gullible people who'll be taken in with such tripe.

I don't know, I think this recent publicity will actually work against Iona in the referendum. I reckon the fence sitters out there, along with the people who just have no interest or are unaware of the vote that's coming will find it hard to align with that viewpoint now that Iona and co have drawn attention to themselves in such a negative light.

It should also spur a lot of people who might not have been bothered to get out there and vote when the time comes.

seenitall · 02-02-2014 05:14PM

No

Friend Computer wrote: »

That's the kind of attitude that has to be faced. How do you argue against that kind of dogmatism?

You don't. You see it for the blatant bigotry that it is, with nothing but hot air, irrational hatred and hapless grand-standing to back it up.

The Irish psyche may be hugely, hugely imbued with the moralising oppression of religion still, but things are changing very quickly in the grand scheme of things, and I firmly believe this issue, this time will become one in the sequence of several battles won for a freer, more equal, more democratic society.

Think back to 1993, or 1995, for example. That was 20 years ago. It's time to get things moving forward yet again.

Muise... · 02-02-2014 05:32PM

seenitall wrote: »

You don't. You see it for the blatant bigotry that it is, with nothing but hot air, irrational hatred and hapless grand-standing to back it up.

The Irish psyche may be hugely, hugely imbued with the moralising oppression of religion still, but things are changing very quickly in the grand scheme of things, and I firmly believe this issue, this time will become one in the sequence of several battles won for a freer, more equal, more democratic society.

Think back to 1993, or 1995, for example. That was 20 years ago. It's time to get things moving forward yet again.

ah '95...
I remember it well. Heatwave. St Elmo's Fire at the Galway Races. Clare winning the All-Ireland. Dancing all night with the Wife-Swappin' Sodomites...

seenitall · 02-02-2014 05:41PM

No

Muise... wrote: »

ah '95...
I remember it well. Heatwave. St Elmo's Fire at the Galway Races. Clare winning the All-Ireland. Dancing all night with the Wife-Swappin' Sodomites...

Sounds like a great one!!

I was 21 and struggling to pass my Uni exams. Had never been to Ireland, and had no notion of going there whatsoever...

...life, eh..?

Nodin · 02-02-2014 06:27PM

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.

.

I saw the orgy in the museum, as it was videoed, and there were no children present. You aren't that reliable a source, Robert.

Muise... · 02-02-2014 06:32PM

Nodin wrote: »

I saw the orgy in the museum, as it was videoed, and there were no children present. You aren't that reliable a source, Robert.

OT, but wasn't that the most grim and glum orgy ever?

Nodin · 02-02-2014 06:35PM

No

Muise... wrote: »

OT, but wasn't that the most grim and glum orgy ever?

You could feel the sore knees. The lads had their problems as well, yer man that was on with o'connor in particular. All in all, it was not an advert for the method of protest.

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 06:36PM

No

Nodin wrote: »

I saw the orgy in the museum, as it was videoed, and there were no children present. You aren't that reliable a source, Robert.

Plus they weren't members when the chicken thing happened.

Nodin · 02-02-2014 06:46PM

No

Corkfeen wrote: »

Plus they weren't members when the chicken thing happened.

A quick search actually shows there was not masturbation with the chicken, some woman just put it up there to sneak it out of the supermarket. Some arty thing. Two nil against oul Roberto, it seems.

Corkfeen · 02-02-2014 06:57PM

No

Nodin wrote: »

A quick search actually shows there was not masturbation with the chicken, some woman just put it up there to sneak it out of the supermarket. Some arty thing. Two nil against oul Roberto, it seems.

He was superimposing his own interpretation upon it.

Muise... · 02-02-2014 07:01PM

Nodin wrote: »

A quick search actually shows there was not masturbation with the chicken, some woman just put it up there to sneak it out of the supermarket. Some arty thing. Two nil against oul Roberto, it seems.

Dead handy for the shoplifting, the snatch. Chicken, though, :eek:

efb · 02-02-2014 07:18PM

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WXayhUzWnl0

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments