Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

floggg · 03-02-2014 11:25AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage should be abolished for all.

I am also against heterosexual civil marriage. It is not about love, it is about the state deciding on legal rights, when a solicitor should be enough.
The state should have no role in marriage.

You can call people homophobic if they don't support SSM, but you should know there are also people who don't support the heterosexual version of civil marriage.
The less of the state in one's life the better, one shouldn't need the state deciding on what a marriage is and what rights they give.

Allow religious groups, humanist groups and whatever have marriage and allow them marry whoever they want.
It should not be the state deciding on what marriage is.

You said a few posts back that you marriage was good for (straight) couples who wanted to commit to each other for life and have a family.

Which is it.

And if you are going for the libertarian approach, then in the absence of any option to abolish civil marriage, the logically consistent approach would be to vote in favour of marriage equality so that the state wouldn't distinguish between relationships based on gender.

Recognise none or recognise all essentially.

Recognise none or recognise only some doesn't seem to be that just, fair or libertarian.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:28AM

Obliq wrote: »

And who are you to tell people how they should/should not express their love for each other?

I can put my opinion out there, just like you can ask who am I to tell people...I could go who are you to tell me I can't give an opinion...

I don't support civil marriage for anyone. For the state it is not about love - it is about tax benefits, inheritance rights, citizenship in some cases, children.
Civil marriage is not about love, even if the people getting married under the state system believe it is about love, they may feel it is about commitment, but it comes with a get out clause, so commitment is really weak in effect given you can get divorced.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:29AM

floggg wrote: »

You said a few posts back that you marriage was good for (straight) couples who wanted to commit to each other for life and have a family.

Which is it.

And if you are going for the libertarian approach, then in the absence of any option to abolish civil marriage, the logically consistent approach would be to vote in favour of marriage equality so that the state wouldn't distinguish between relationships based on gender.

Recognise none or recognise all essentially.

Recognise none or recognise only some doesn't seem to be that just, fair or libertarian.

Yes, but you shouldn't need civil marriage for that, it is a weak form of marriage, given it is not all about love.

I would never vote yes to civil marriage for anyone.

J_E · 03-02-2014 11:30AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, but you shouldn't need civil marriage for that, it is a weak form of marriage, given it is not all about love.

what kind of long term partnership isn't about love?

floggg · 03-02-2014 11:31AM

No

petronius wrote: »

If you disagree with the liberal mainstream all they do is resort to name calling, pathetic!

I know. They keep calling me a pervert, peadophile, promiscuous, intrinsically disordered, dangerous to children, destroyer of straight marriages and or society etc..

Oh wait, sorry. You said liberal mainstream. I thought you meant the religious, conservative and right wing mainstreams.

The liberals are lovely. They want me to be treated like an equal citizen and everything!

Sarky · 03-02-2014 11:32AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I can put my opinion out there, just like you can ask who am I to tell people...I could go who are you to tell me I can't give an opinion...

Nobody's stopping you opining til the cows come home. It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:33AM

Daith wrote: »

If you want to point out when someone says something offensive don't! They'll resort to legal threats, won't appear on a show with a right to respond and want money.

Pathetic!

It is pathetic they were expected to appear on a show where RTE allowed them to be called names and left it uncontested.

I read Iona are putting the money to a memorial towards their murdered colleague among other things and will not be personally pocketing the money.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 11:34AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage should be abolished for all.

Yes, better to destroy marriage completely than let the gays have it!

Daith · 03-02-2014 11:34AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It is pathetic they were expected to appear on a show where RTE allowed them to be called names and left it uncontested.

RTE invited them to appear on the show last Saturday as a right to respond and they declined.

Yet they accuse others of shutting down debate?

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:34AM

Sarky wrote: »

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

You could say the about yourself.

Corkfeen · 03-02-2014 11:35AM

No

Sarky wrote: »

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

He claimed the research hadn't been going on for long enough, I pointed out there's 30 year worth. He then shifted goal posts so I'd suspect he'll never actually read it.

J_E · 03-02-2014 11:36AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

You could say the about yourself.

lol, oh dear...

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:36AM

Daith wrote: »

RTE invited them to appear on the show and they declined.

I would decline to appear on a show where they chose on the night to allow the name calling go uncontested.

The horse had bolted and RTE needed to be taught you can't allow any idiot to appear on TV or radio and make allegations about someone and then not distance the broadcaster from the opinions.

RTE brought it on themselves.

Obliq · 03-02-2014 11:36AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I can put my opinion out there, just like you can ask who am I to tell people...I could go who are you to tell me I can't give an opinion...

I don't support civil marriage for anyone. For the state it is not about love - it is about tax benefits, inheritance rights, citizenship in some cases, children.
Civil marriage is not about love, even if the people getting married under the state system believe it is about love, they may feel it is about commitment, but it comes with a get out clause, so commitment is really weak in effect given you can get divorced.

I never said you couldn't give an opinion, I asked you do you think you are to tell people how they should limit their options to what suits your opinion? Do you think you are better than other people? Do you think you have a better grasp of reality? I beg to differ, as is my right. You just don't like me calling you on it.

As for your 2nd paragraph - it's none of your business why people get married or what they think it's for. You don't support marriage for anyone, so you're going to start with keeping SSM illegal before moving on to campaign against ALL marriage, yeah? Let me know when you notice that tree on your shoulder is getting in people's faces eh? I'll help you put it down.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 11:36AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

You could say the about yourself.

Can you cite the research that says same sex couples make worse parents than opposite sex couples? Thanks.

floggg · 03-02-2014 11:37AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, but you shouldn't need civil marriage for that, it is a weak form of marriage, given it is not all about love.

I would never vote yes to civil marriage for anyone.

Em, what?

Religious marriage is the weak version. It offers nothing but a nice day out.

Civil marriage offers stability, security, inheritance rights, maintenance and support obligations, pension rights, tax breaks, immigration rights.

Civil marriage is the only show in town if you want any form of protection and benefits for your family.

And if you're opposition is to all civil marriage, why are you arguing against the gays so much.

I fear you may be perhaps being a little disingenuous here

Sarky · 03-02-2014 11:37AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

You could say the about yourself.

I could. But I'm not a huge fan of redundancy, or terrible opinions. Why are you so happy with opinions you know conflict with reality?

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:38AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

lol, oh dear...

Yes oh dear, this is how pointless this topic is.

People who are for SSM, try and silence debate, with namecalling and belittling opposing opinions.

Keep it up, best way for SSM to be lost in a referendum.

Zubeneschamali · 03-02-2014 11:38AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

RTE needed to be taught you can't allow any idiot to appear on TV or radio

and yet they keep inviting Iona on.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:39AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

and yet they keep inviting Iona on.

I was told by a broadcaster in RTE, that when it comes to social issues, that it is a limited number of people who are prepared to appear on shows to discuss stuff, and they need to balance debates, so it is usually the same people from both sides who appear.

floggg · 03-02-2014 11:40AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It is pathetic they were expected to appear on a show where RTE allowed them to be called names and left it uncontested.

I read Iona are putting the money to a memorial towards their murdered colleague among other things and will not be personally pocketing the money.

Actually BOC specifically said he didn't think John Waters was homophobic, at which point Rory clarified that everybody was a little homophobic.

And John Waters got the biggest payout.

Daith · 03-02-2014 11:40AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I would decline to appear on a show where they chose on the night to allow the name calling go uncontested.

The horse had bolted and RTE needed to be taught you can't allow any idiot to appear on TV or radio and make allegations about someone and then not distance the broadcaster from the opinions.

RTE brought it on themselves.

No, RTE did distance themself from the comments Rory made. They apologised to Iona and paid them money. Can you do some research?

Iona cried they being called homophobes was shutting down the debate. They're the only ones shutting down the debate.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:40AM

Sarky wrote: »

I could. But I'm not a huge fan of redundancy, or terrible opinions. Why are you so happy with opinions you know conflict with reality?

Sometimes reality is an illusion.

RobertKK · 03-02-2014 11:41AM

Daith wrote: »

No, RTE did distance themself from the comments Rory made. They apologised to Iona and paid them money. Can you do some research?

Iona cried they being called homophobes was shutting down the debate. They're the only ones shutting down the debate.

When it was too late.

papu · 03-02-2014 11:42AM

No

Daith wrote: »

No, RTE did distance themself from the comments Rory made. They apologised to Iona and paid them money. Can you do some research?

Iona cried they being called homophobes was shutting down the debate. They're the only ones shutting down the debate.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Tbh they are what he said , they threw a tantrum and called their lawyers. Was cheaper to settle than fight it.

Corkfeen · 03-02-2014 11:42AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Sometimes reality is an illusion.

Got some research that shows same sex parents are inferior? You claim to be well versed in it but have yet to provide anything, strange!

Also, you've yet to show why fighting for the right to fire gay teachers isn't homophobic. So yeah, so far Iona are homophobic unless you can prove otherwise.

Daith · 03-02-2014 11:42AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

When it was too late.

Nope, not according to the broadcast regulation which states that if one show is deemed "unbalanced" then RTE can run another show to show the opposite view.

Which Iona declined.

Breda had no problem going onto another RTE show on the Thursday following the debate and discussing it there though....

J_E · 03-02-2014 11:43AM

No

Why are straight men on Twitter telling me they know more about gay terminology and use than I, a gay man, do? This is the serious problem we have with Ireland today.

Annasopra · 03-02-2014 11:47AM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

Why are straight men on Twitter telling me they know more about gay terminology and use than I, a gay man, do? This is the serious problem we have with Ireland today.

I agree but then I am heartened by the many many straight peoole who are fighting with us on this issue.

In particular Averil Power, Ivana Bacik, John Moynes and Tara Flynn have been great this week.

Also - look at the poll above. There are a large number of straight people who voted yes.

floggg · 03-02-2014 11:47AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It's just that your opinions, at least on this topic, are terrible. Have you considered getting better ones? There are opinons on marriage and equality that have research and logic to back them up now, you know. Honest to god, research. They're quite impressive.

You could say the about yourself.

But his opinions are backed up by research. The research has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments