Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

aidan24326 · 04-02-2014 01:19PM

No

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.

Ronan Mullen is a despisable individual.

The doctor in question should be given two choices. Do your job without such religiously-inspired prejudice or kindly fcuk off and find yourself a more suitable career.

What's 'grotesque' here is that someone like Ronan Mullen is given a public platform to spout his backward, narrow-minded views. Note to Ronan: take yourself and your religious zeal back to the 1950s where you both belong.

floggg · 04-02-2014 01:21PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

It's not.

Honestly, it's being treated like some magical words that cut's off microphones.

If I as a gay person assert that I feel somebody who is publicly advocating for unequal treatment of gay peoples relationships is motivated by homophobia, they are perfectly free to respond and set out the reasons why they consider their opposition not to be homophobic.

The audience and public could then decide.

The problem here is that Iona are trying to re-characterise the word as something it's not and to pretend it is a slur on a par with the actual slurs it's used to describe.

They are scared of the association with that word because they know it will force them to defend their motives.

For years the anti-LGBT side could use words like pervert with impunity.

However, that was seen for the lies it was, so they played the religion card and the "think of the children" card.

The religion card is poisonous to most in a debate about civil rights and equality, and the "think of the children" card is now being exposed as misplaced, misconceived and in some instances just plain lies.

As public opinion has changed, the question isn't "why should allow equality" any more but is now "why not." People are not casting a critical eye over the opposition and not liking what they see.

So in order to stay in the game, they need to re-cast themselves as victims and to deflect attention away from their flaky arguments and unsaid prejudices.

Mind you, it's not all tactical. Often when the tables turn and the oppressors are no longer the majority they struggle to understand how the freedom of speech they used with impunity when theirs was the only voice allowed to be heard, is suddenly being used to answer back in a very loud voice.

Sarky · 04-02-2014 01:28PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

You don't seem very silenced. Funny, that.

floggg · 04-02-2014 01:30PM

No

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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...

They wouldn't, for the same reason that parish halls can't be made to host Muslim weddings, atheist meetings etc and the church can't be made to marry divorced people or ordain women priests.

It's baseless scaremongering - and if it was a genuine concern the appropriate response would be to seek legislative protections for parish halls in such circumstances rather than oppose the entire concept of civil partnership.

Daith · 04-02-2014 01:49PM

No

Friend Computer wrote: »

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

And Iona refused a right to reply

Also Iona were on a debate show on Thu following being called homophobes discussing it!

returnNull · 04-02-2014 01:50PM

No

Sarky wrote: »

You don't seem very silenced. Funny, that.

the very fact the gay haters arent silenced does their side more harm than anything else.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:53PM

Friend Computer wrote: »

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

They didn't silence debate, no court was involved.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:54PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

As they should when those beliefs are enacted via discrimination.

So the property of the church, a mosque, a synagogue, a temple and so on can be used by whoever or else it is discrimination?

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:55PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

Ronan Mullen is a despisable individual.

The doctor in question should be given two choices. Do your job without such religiously-inspired prejudice or kindly fcuk off and find yourself a more suitable career.

What's 'grotesque' here is that someone like Ronan Mullen is given a public platform to spout his backward, narrow-minded views. Note to Ronan: take yourself and your religious zeal back to the 1950s where you both belong.

Ronan Mullen is a great person, who is genuine.

It is interesting people would rather his views were silenced....

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:56PM

Sarky wrote: »

You don't seem very silenced. Funny, that.

Look, I could stop posting and maybe that is what one would prefer.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 01:57PM

returnNull wrote: »

the very fact the gay haters arent silenced does their side more harm than anything else.

Who here hates gays?

Daith · 04-02-2014 01:58PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Look, I could stop posting and maybe that is what one would prefer.

Has anyone here asked you to stop posting?

floggg · 04-02-2014 02:03PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

They didn't silence debate, no court was involved.

Calling somebody a "mean name" (if you accept Iona's version - which I don't) is silencing the wave but sending solicitors action if certain speakers views are not edited out and denounced publicly isn't.

Weird logic.

Glad you also accept that no case for defamation has actually been established - in which case RTE should not have paid out.

Corkfeen · 04-02-2014 02:11PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Ronan Mullen is a great person, who is genuine.

It is interesting people would rather his views were silenced....

You're the first person to say that.

Kiwi in IE · 04-02-2014 02:13PM

No

In a stange way Ionas disproportionate media attention most likely does work in a paradoxical way to what they intend. They come across as so prejudice, irrational, discriminatory, inappropriate and archaic, that I am sure it makes many people who are not affected personally by equal marriage feel less apathetic than they otherwise might without constant exposure to their poisonous vitriol.

Muise... · 04-02-2014 02:16PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In a stange way Ionas disproportionate media attention most likely does work in a paradoxical way to what they intend. They come across as so prejudice, irrational, discriminatory, inappropriate and archaic, that I am sure it makes many people who are not affected personally by equal marriage feel less apathetic than they otherwise might without constant exposure to their poisonous vitriol.

Streisand Effect FTW!

https://twitter.com/Deebodee/status/428244823070756864/photo/1

Let's keep giving them rope...

Akrasia · 04-02-2014 02:18PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

They didn't silence debate, no court was involved.

Aren't they lucky, cause a court would probably not have awarded them a cent in damages as Rory's comments were completely justified and measured

Sarky · 04-02-2014 02:21PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Look, I could stop posting and maybe that is what one would prefer.

That'd be silencing yourself. You do have that right, according to any police film I've ever watched. But then you wouldn't be able to fill pages of thread with complaints about how accurately labeling homophobia is the same thing as demanding such things be silenced, would you?

c_man · 04-02-2014 02:21PM

No

aidan24326 wrote: »

What's 'grotesque' here is that someone like Ronan Mullen is given a public platform to spout his backward, narrow-minded views.

Grotesque that an elected Senator gets to air his views? Ah c'mon now. You may not like him (neither do I tbh, and I voted to get rid of the talking shop Seanad) but he is a public representative.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 02:25PM

Daith wrote: »

Has anyone here asked you to stop posting?

I think one or two would rather I did.

04-02-2014 02:26PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Look, I could stop posting and maybe that is what one would prefer.

I certainly don't want you to stop posting, I think you're doing a bang-up job.
Now close your eyes, click your heels together three times and repeat ad nauseum:

"The Iona Institute is not homophobic, the Iona Institute is not homophobic, the Iona Institute is not homophobic..........

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 02:27PM

It's actually also highlighting a severe perform with the costs involved in the Irish legal system too.

A huge % of disputes are resolved by this kind of payment simply because the system is so outlandishly expensive.

If defending a case is astronomically expensive, it can end up being a situation where the party with the deepest pockets will get a settlement as the other party can't justify going to court.

That's really not justice. It's just economic imperative.

RobertKK · 04-02-2014 02:29PM

Sarky wrote: »

That'd be silencing yourself. You do have that right, according to any police film I've ever watched. But then you wouldn't be able to fill pages of thread with complaints about how accurately labeling homophobia is the sane thing as demanding such things be silenced, would you?

It is not accurately labelled.

In this thread you will find it said anyone against SSM is homophobic. Therefore it will put people off posting as they don't want to have that label put on them when they don't have a problem with homosexuals, but simply don't support a redefinition of marriage.

Daith · 04-02-2014 02:29PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think one or two would rather I did.

So no one asked you? No one is silencing you.

Bannasidhe · 04-02-2014 02:29PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think one or two would rather I did.

Why would we want that when you are doing our cause so much good?

I urge you to keep posting.

Tell us more about how wonderful Senator Mullen is...

plz.

floggg · 04-02-2014 02:32PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I think one or two would rather I did.

To: RobertKK
CC: Iona, Susan Phillips

Dear Mr KK

Disagreeing and wanting/trying to silence them are not the same thing.

Yours faithfully

Constructive Debate

floggg · 04-02-2014 02:36PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not accurately labelled.

In this thread you will find it said anyone against SSM is homophobic. Therefore it will put people off posting as they don't want to have that label put on them when they don't have a problem with homosexuals, but simply don't support a redefinition of marriage.

It's the discrimination without a rational reason bit that indicates homophobia to us.

Unfortunately it just so happens that opponents of equality don't have a rational reason.

Kurtosis · 04-02-2014 02:48PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

In this thread you will find it said anyone against SSM is homophobic.

If someone is against same sex marriage on the basis of something other than sexuality then they aren't homophobic. No one opposing same sex marriage on this thread has given a reasonable basis other than sexuality yet however...

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 02:53PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

They didn't silence debate,

Did RTE not censor the RTE player?

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 03:01PM

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.

who's silly me or quinn?

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments