Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Skylinehead · 04-02-2014 12:23PM

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 only wish that he had the newspaper clipping of Susan Phillips homophobia on the Saturday Night Show at the time, make her look like a fool on live TV rather than afterwards.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 12:24PM

No

floggg wrote: »

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.

i laughed out loud when he called out Susan philips and she denied it...he looked at the camera and made a face!! brilliant!

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:40PM

No

I am beginning to think that given Iona et als aversion to the love that dare not speaks its name and the 21st century in general they assumed that good old shame was still silencing 'the' gays so the existence of so many articulate, well educated, unashamed, gays from 'good' families who refuse to shut up and emigrate has come as a bit of a shock.

I blame the art collages. Lovely middle class teenagers from lovely middle class families go there and catch the gay. Happened me so I know all about it... it was in a life drawing class. It was cold. The model was male. I left that room a lesbian...

:pac:

david75 · 04-02-2014 12:43PM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

Absolutely agreed. Iona were wrong to do that.

In fairness, to my eyes they've handed us a huge victory and were their own undoing in this.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 12:46PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

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.

Who called them grotesque?

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 12:47PM

david75 wrote: »

In fairness, to my eyes they've handed us a huge victory and were their own undoing in this.

Going by newstalk yesterday evening, and what Ivana Bacik said, the response was postive for Iona and negative for Ivana...

Zubeneschamali · 04-02-2014 12:48PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Who called them grotesque?

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

floggg · 04-02-2014 12:49PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am beginning to think that given Iona et als aversion to the love that dare not speaks its name and the 21st century in general they assumed that good old shame was still silencing 'the' gays so the existence of so many articulate, well educated, unashamed, gays from 'good' families who refuse to shut up and emigrate has come as a bit of a shock.

I blame the art collages. Lovely middle class teenagers from lovely middle class families go there and catch the gay. Happened me so I know all about it... it was in a life drawing class. It was cold. The model was male. I left that room a lesbian...

:pac:

A ping pong show in Thailand turned me gay.

I could never look at lady parts the same way after seeing one finish a cigarette before angrily spitting darts and bursting my balloon.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 12:52PM

No

floggg wrote: »

A ping pong show in Thailand turned me gay.

I could never look at lady parts the same way after seeing one finish a cigarette before angrily spitting darts and bursting my balloon.

Well if you are going to go to foreign parts what do you expect? Are there even catlicks in Thailand???? :eek:

Zubeneschamali · 04-02-2014 12:54PM

No

Or perhaps David Quinn on the Civil Partnership Bill in the Indo from 2010:

The Government has told us that this Bill will affect only the few hundred same-sex couples who will choose to avail of it. In fact, it will treat belief in traditional marriage as a form of prejudice, to be outlawed under certain circumstances. This has already happened in Britain, in Spain and in parts of America. It is an extremely far-reaching, indeed grotesque, development.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 12:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

He is gay himself and had to resign over his gay encounters. Now away doing 'prayer, penance and spiritual renewal'...

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:54PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Going by newstalk yesterday evening, and what Ivana Bacik said, the response was postive for Iona and negative for Ivana...

Is that you Breda?

Sarky · 04-02-2014 12:56PM

No

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

Pretty sure I saw David Quinn, head of the Iona crowd, using the same words. This obviously means calling hay relationships grotesque can't be homophobic because sure didn't he sue RTE for less?

Zubeneschamali · 04-02-2014 12:57PM

No

It seems to be a favourite word art Iona. In 2010, Ronan Mullen described as "grotesque" a decision by the medical council to charge with professional misconduct a fertility doctor who would only help married couples.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 12:57PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or perhaps David Quinn on the Civil Partnership Bill in the Indo from 2010:

The Government has told us that this Bill will affect only the few hundred same-sex couples who will choose to avail of it. In fact, it will treat belief in traditional marriage as a form of prejudice, to be outlawed under certain circumstances. This has already happened in Britain, in Spain and in parts of America. It is an extremely far-reaching, indeed grotesque, development.

Reading the article it seems you took it out of context.

lazygal · 04-02-2014 12:59PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Reading the article it seems you took it out of context.

What was the context?

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 12:59PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It seems to be a favourite word art Iona. In 2010, Ronan Mullen described as "grotesque" a decision by the medical council to charge with professional misconduct a fertility doctor who would only help married couples.

Some people would rather people be robots with no freedom of conscience.

ProfessorPlum · 04-02-2014 01:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

I somehow doubt that RTE would be so quick to pay out if you call someone racist, and that person:
Is against black* people marrying, because they are black.
Is against black* people adopting, because they are black.
Is for sacking black* teachers, because they are black.

*Insert favourite hated race

Gbear · 04-02-2014 01:02PM

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?

This is a silly point.

We can't just dismiss such occurences when, if the shoe was on the other foot, and we heard that an LGBT activist was getting death threats, we'd treat that very seriously.

What's really important is that there are dickheads all over the world and on the every side of every debate.

The only thing that's important is the substance of the debate.
You could be debating literally Hitler and all that would be important is the content of what he's saying and not his Hitlerness.

The problem in drawing attention to such matters (instead of quietly reporting death threats to the Gardaí) is that I very much think it's a cynical PR exercise and one that people are all too quick to fall for.
Whether or not David Quinn is getting death threats isn't something that informs this debate. It's utterly irrelevant in this context.

This is important not because of this isolated case but because similar efforts are made to derail every debate on anything and people always commit fallacies of including irrelevant information in a debate.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:02PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people would rather people be robots with no freedom of conscience.

My irony meter just exploded again.

Dyr · 04-02-2014 01:03PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Going by newstalk yesterday evening, and what Ivana Bacik said, the response was postive for Iona and negative for Ivana...

tbh Ivana would lose the audience in a debate on kiddie fiddling with Father Brendan Smyth

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:03PM

lazygal wrote: »

What was the context?

The use of a parish hall as an example for civil unions which are owned by a religious group who believe in traditional marriage and not supportive of civil unions.
The law was going to force the religious groups to act against their beliefs and conscience.

For one thing, a parish will be required by law to rent out its hall to a same-sex couple if they want to use it to hold their reception there following a civil-union ceremony. The ethos of the parish won't matter a jot. No distinction will be made between an ethos-neutral activity such as letting out a church hall to a scout troop and one that violates ethos.
Everyone knows that the Catholic Church believes in traditional marriage, as do Muslims, and traditional-minded Jews and Protestants. But for holding to this belief, and by refusing to facilitate a same-sex civil partnership ceremony and any attendant events, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc will be breaking the law.
They will be found guilty of discrimination. They will be put in the same boat as people who refuse to facilitate inter-racial marriage. That is, they will be treated as the exact functional equivalent of racists for believing in traditional marriage.
But the Catholic Church never opposed inter-racial marriage because inter-racial marriage doesn't change the definition of marriage, unlike same-sex marriage and its near equivalent.
So you see where we are? The Government has told us that this Bill will affect only the few hundred same-sex couples who will choose to avail of it. In fact, it will treat belief in traditional marriage as a form of prejudice, to be outlawed under certain circumstances. This has already happened in Britain, in Spain and in parts of America. It is an extremely far-reaching, indeed grotesque, development.
Many Protestants realise this as well which is why, on Monday, a high-ranking Church of Ireland delegation met officials from the Department of Justice to discuss the implications of this Bill for freedom of conscience, proving it is not simply a Catholic issue. Far from it.

Sarky · 04-02-2014 01:04PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Reading the article it seems you took it out of context.

This keeps getting better. Oh please do tell us in which context it's perfectly fine and not at all homophobic to call gay people looking for equal rights grotesque.

Zubeneschamali · 04-02-2014 01:04PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Reading the article it seems you took it out of context.

True, I left out the stuff explaining that the Catholic Church are really quite good at minding the children, and where he says the Civil Partnership Bill is arguably the most serious attack on freedom of conscience and religion ever seen by this country, with the possible exception of the Equal Status Act

floggg · 04-02-2014 01:05PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

He is gay himself and had to resign over his gay encounters. Now away doing 'prayer, penance and spiritual renewal'...

As are many right-wingers who oppose gay rights.

Google Aaron Schock for example.*

Proof that even gay people can be homophobic.

*there are problem far better but none look as good as him with their shirts off!

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:06PM

Daith wrote: »

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

He fails to mention the word homophobia is being used to silence debate.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 01:07PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The use of a parish hall as an example for civil unions which are owned by a religious group who believe in traditional marriage and not supportive of civil unions.
The law was going to force the religious groups to act against their beliefs and conscience.

It there any proof that 'parish' halls would be forced to accommodate SSM?

If not - that is nothing more than scaremongering.

Personally given the state of most parish halls I seriously doubt anyone with even a modicum of style would want to have their weeding there...

floggg · 04-02-2014 01:08PM

No

Gbear wrote: »

This is a silly point.

We can't just dismiss such occurences when, if the shoe was on the other foot, and we heard that an LGBT activist was getting death threats, we'd treat that very seriously.

What's really important is that there are dickheads all over the world and on the every side of every debate.

The only thing that's important is the substance of the debate.
You could be debating literally Hitler and all that would be important is the content of what he's saying and not his Hitlerness.

The problem in drawing attention to such matters (instead of quietly reporting death threats to the Gardaí) is that I very much think it's a cynical PR exercise and one that people are all too quick to fall for.
Whether or not David Quinn is getting death threats isn't something that informs this debate. It's utterly irrelevant in this context.

This is important not because of this isolated case but because similar efforts are made to derail every debate on anything and people always commit fallacies of including irrelevant information in a debate.

Panti has said on Twitter that he's getting equally vile correspondence. He just doesn't need the PR spin as much.

Friend Computer · 04-02-2014 01:12PM

RobertKK wrote: »

He fails to mention the word homophobia is being used to silence debate.

Once again, it was Iona who used the courts to actually silence debate.

runawaybishop · 04-02-2014 01:13PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The use of a parish hall as an example for civil unions which are owned by a religious group who believe in traditional marriage and not supportive of civil unions.
The law was going to force the religious groups to act against their beliefs and conscience.

As they should when those beliefs are enacted via discrimination.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments