Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

floggg · 04-02-2014 10:23AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Was very funny yesterday, Ivana Bacik on national radio talking about the LGBT noise protest in Dublin last Sunday.

The response she got was negative from texters, who saw her as trying to stifle debate by calling people homophobic, and that it was wrong to allow people call people names in the media and then expect no consequences.

If you have a poor argument, you resort to name calling.

We can't have a referendum on SSM if one sides tries to silence the other side with name calling for opposing it.

Also read how some pro SSM people sent emails to David Quinn, telling him he should kill himself and if they met him they would beat him up, another wanted to go into the Iona offices and defecate there.

All this behaviour is not doing the SSM brigade any favours, and I have seen no one from that side distance themselves from name calling and threats.

Violence and threats of violence, name calling from any side just loses that side support.

So much lol.

J_E · 04-02-2014 10:49AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

We can't have a referendum on SSM if one sides tries to silence the other side with name calling for opposing it.

Absolutely agreed. Iona were wrong to do that.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 10:51AM

floggg wrote: »

So much lol.

Yeah, in your world where you only want to believe homosexuals are the victims.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 10:51AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Was very funny yesterday, Ivana Bacik on national radio talking about the LGBT noise protest in Dublin last Sunday.

The response she got was negative from texters, who saw her as trying to stifle debate by calling people homophobic, and that it was wrong to allow people call people names in the media and then expect no consequences.

If you have a poor argument, you resort to name calling.

We can't have a referendum on SSM if one sides tries to silence the other side with name calling for opposing it.

Also read how some pro SSM people sent emails to David Quinn, telling him he should kill himself and if they met him they would beat him up, another wanted to go into the Iona offices and defecate there.

All this behaviour is not doing the SSM brigade any favours, and I have seen no one from that side distance themselves from name calling and threats.

Violence and threats of violence, name calling from any side just loses that side support.

this line has been trotted by Iona quite a bit....the reason it annoys me is because i doubt very much people serious about this debate would do such a thing....the people sending death threats are trolls and probably aren't on any side....now you tell me ...What proof do you have that pro ssm are sending threats?

EuskalHerria · 04-02-2014 10:57AM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

I just so wish he hadn't included the last sentence. Everything was so perfect up to that part.

My view on the last line is that it's not his summation on the issue, however the sexual aspect is often fixated on upon by the Iona institute etc and forthat reason it was mentioned.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 10:59AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Absolutely agreed. Iona were wrong to do that.

Who did Iona silence? It was Panti who who went off on one, accused people and caused the problem.
Can I go on RTE and name you as a racist? If RTE did the same as with Panti, then you would be getting a payout from RTE when you complain that your good name has been brought into disrepute, especially when there is a lack of evidence to support my claims.

Could we have a debate if I was calling you names and you were calling me names?
Is that how we want the SSM referendum to be?

'Oh you are against SSM, means you are homophobic' I say SSM people should keep using that argument, if they want to lose the referendum.

Being told one is homophobic for not supporting SSM lacks intelligence, it is putting everyone in the same box irregardless of the reasons they are against it.
The resentment to being told one is something they are not will lead to more no votes.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 11:00AM

No

This in now Ionas stock PR message
"We are victims"
"We get nasty emails"

Fascinating watching it.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 11:01AM

No

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

this line has been trotted by Iona quite a bit....the reason it annoys me is because i doubt very much people serious about this debate would do such a thing....the people sending death threats are trolls and probably aren't on any side....now you tell me ...What proof do you have that pro ssm are sending threats?

There is no proof. Just David Quinns word.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 11:01AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

this line has been trotted by Iona quite a bit....the reason it annoys me is because i doubt very much people serious about this debate would do such a thing....the people sending death threats are trolls and probably aren't on any side....now you tell me ...What proof do you have that pro ssm are sending threats?

Really?

Is that why they say they are pro-SSM.

We know if the boot was on the other foot, there would be no question that the people were against SSM.
Again we have double standards.

mickstupp · 04-02-2014 11:05AM

No

I think I'm an Ionaphobe.

But since I don't like that word I'm going to sue everyone. Even though I am.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 11:06AM

mango salsa wrote: »

There is no proof. Just David Quinns word.

I don't see why he would lie as you need to have the proof to make such claims.

I was told to kill myself by a person who tried to rip me off, I was told I should hang myself off Johns bridge in Kilkenny city.
They threatened to come to my house but I told them the gardai would be involved if they did.
Not everyone wants to escalate something if they think they can control it.

David Quinn can control it by publicising it.

EuskalHerria · 04-02-2014 11:08AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Who did Iona silence? It was Panti who who went off on one, accused people and caused the problem.
Can I go on RTE and name you as a racist? If RTE did the same as with Panti, then you would be getting a payout from RTE when you complain that your good name has been brought into disrepute, especially when there is a lack of evidence to support my claims.

Could we have a debate if I was calling you names and you were calling me names?
Is that how we want the SSM referendum to be?

'Oh you are against SSM, means you are homophobic' I say SSM people should keep using that argument, if they want to lose the referendum.

Being told one is homophobic for not supporting SSM lacks intelligence, it is putting everyone in the same box irregardless of the reasons they are against it.
The resentment to being told one is something they are not will lead to more no votes.

The problem about your analogy about racism is that is a baseless claim without evidence. It can be proved that Breda, Waters and the Iona institute have all actively looked to campaign against homosexuals.

Seriously with very limited knowledge of the legal system, I could have had all three with their tails between their legs before lunchtime. Paying them 80k or so as their "good characters" were harmed. Like I said earlier, the oppressors claiming to be oppressed is such a novelty.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 11:09AM

EuskalHerria wrote: »

The problem about your analogy about racism is that is a baseless claim without evidence. It can be proved that Breda, Waters and the Iona institute have all actively looked to campaign against homosexuals.

Seriously with very limited knowledge of the legal system, I could have had all three with their tails between their legs before lunchtime. Paying them 80k or so as their "good characters" were harmed. Like I said earlier, the oppressors claiming to be oppressed is such a novelty.

Still doesn't meant they are homophobic.

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

eyescreamcone · 04-02-2014 11:11AM

No

Iona and their RCC masters are inherently discriminatory towards gays.

This is homophobic in my book.

Would they prefer to be described as discriminating towards gays??

Iona institute - you know what you are!!!

J_E · 04-02-2014 11:13AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Still doesn't meant they are homophobic.

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

Calling civil partnerships 'grotesque', putting equality 'second place to the common good', calling a loving marriage a 'satire', placing one marriage on a higher podium than the other despite legal discrepancies, is 100% homophobia.

mickstupp · 04-02-2014 11:18AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

If you're 'against SSM, SS adoption or whatever', then in my book that's precisely the same as being in favour of denying the rights of adoption and those conferred by marriage to a subset of society based entirely on their sexuality. That, as far as I can tell, is homophobic. Therefore, being 'against SSM, SS adoption or whatever', is homophobic. Seems perfectly clear to me. But I'm no expert, being straight and unreligious and all. Might be wrong. Is it not true that being against same sex marriage, is the same as being in favour of denying marriage to a couple of the same sex?

EuskalHerria · 04-02-2014 11:19AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Still doesn't meant they are homophobic.

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

I'm not getting into the semantics of the ever changing definition of homophobia. Actively campaigning against a section of society based on something they can't change is wrong and discrimination. Call it whatever you want or ignore it's an issue as you are doing. However it is still wrong and if it was against an ethnicity, race or religious group it would not be tolerated.

What needs to be understood is that abortion, contraception and divorce all in recent years have been pointed out as the end of days for civil society. We have legislated for contraception and divorce and oddly enough society has not crumbled into a post apocalyptic setting. We progress over time, it may be slow but we are heading in the right direction. What the religious right in the this country need to understand is that they can try and hold society back all they want, they no longer have the ability to have it all their own way anymore.

Things will change for the better in this country and this entire episode will make a great episode of reeling in the years as we all laugh at how backwards some members of our society were.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 11:19AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Really?

Is that why they say they are pro-SSM.

We know if the boot was on the other foot, there would be no question that the people were against SSM.
Again we have double standards.

if the pro side said Iona was sending them death threats? I'm not gay myself so have no experience of homophobia but was the jist of rory's speech the other night that gay people do get threats quite a bit?

EuskalHerria · 04-02-2014 11:30AM

No

"I don't think black people should be able to marry or adopt kids."

"I don't think travellers should be able to marry or adopt kids."

"I don't think gay people should be able to marry or adopt kids."

"I don't think Jewish/Christian/Muslim people should be able to marry or adopt kids."

Only one of these sentence is almost socially acceptable. For the life of me I cannot understand how we cannot get an almost universal consensus as to the need to change attitudes towards this and legislation.

floggg · 04-02-2014 11:33AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah, in your world where you only want to believe homosexuals are the victims.

Of homophobia.

floggg · 04-02-2014 11:36AM

No

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

this line has been trotted by Iona quite a bit....the reason it annoys me is because i doubt very much people serious about this debate would do such a thing....the people sending death threats are trolls and probably aren't on any side....now you tell me ...What proof do you have that pro ssm are sending threats?

Both Panti and Colm O'Gorman have pointed out that they have received equally vile emails and messages this week.

They however are debating the issue on the merits, rather than hiding behind them.

Daith · 04-02-2014 11:41AM

No

floggg wrote: »

Both Panti and Colm O'Gorman have pointed out that they have received equally vile emails and messages this week.

They however are debating the issue on the merits, rather than hiding behind them.

I've said this before but Colm O'Gorman is in a same sex relationship (or relationship) and is raising children. He goes onto these debates and is told basically that he shouldn't be raising his kids.

It's hugely insulting but he just debates the points.

krudler · 04-02-2014 11:44AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah, in your world where you only want to believe homosexuals are the victims.

What exactly are you a victim of? you have your legal rights

lazygal · 04-02-2014 11:46AM

No

Colm O'Gorman is one of the most impressive speakers on this and many other issues in Ireland today. I call on the Irish Times and Independent to replace Iona 'Institute' homophobic columnists with him.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 11:47AM

No

floggg wrote: »

Both Panti and Colm O'Gorman have pointed out that they have received equally vile emails and messages this week.

They however are debating the issue on the merits, rather than hiding behind them.

so that's ionas argument "cancelled out" then!

Corkfeen · 04-02-2014 11:48AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Still doesn't meant they are homophobic.

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

But being against gay teachers isn't homophobic? If you're going to be the white knight of Iona, why is it that you can't explain how such a position isn't homophobic? You just dodge this aspect repeatedly. You can't defend them and ignore this aspect.

It's making world wide news and the consensus is that they are homophobic btw.

floggg · 04-02-2014 11:53AM

No

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so that's ionas argument "cancelled out" then!

It's not an argument.

For the anti-ssm marriage side to be claiming victim status in this is mind boggling.

Compared to what is said about gay people, their relationships and their families being called homophobic, particularly when it is clarified that everybody is homophobic to varying degrees, is very tame

Rory actually called everybody in the country homophobic so it's not like he picked on them in particular.

John Waters has written that if I was to marry it would be a satire of a marriage, that I want to do so only to destroy marriage for straight people (which would include the marriages of my friends and family) and that is considered entirely acceptable - and yet he is the wronged party because he was called homophobe, along with everybody else in the country.

lazygal · 04-02-2014 11:53AM

No

I wonder will Iona be flapping around with cease and desist to all other media outlets.

Also, this:

floggg · 04-02-2014 11:58AM

No

lazygal wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman is one of the most impressive speakers on this and many other issues in Ireland today. I call on the Irish Times and Independent to replace Iona 'Institute' homophobic columnists with him.

I have to say I've felt proud to have somebody so assured, poised, insightful, eloquent and resilient fighting my corner.

I hadn't seen an awful lot of him until the last two weeks, but he has impressed me no end.

His ability to remain calm, rational and reasoned is amazing.

Daith · 04-02-2014 12:12PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Still doesn't meant they are homophobic.

Being against SSM, SS adoption or whatever is not proof of homophobia.

For the last three weeks, I’ve been denounced from the floor of the Oireachtas, [by] newspaper columns [and] the seething morass of internet commentary, denounced for using hate speech because I dared to use the word ‘homophobia’, and a jumped-up queer like me should know that the word homophobia is no longer available to gay people, which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia, homophobes are the victims of homophobia

Rory O'Neill

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments