Iona vs Panti

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 02:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No it is not idiotic -(great way to debate by the way - don't deal with what I said just dismiss it as 'idiotic' :rolleyes:)

We here in A&A have often made much of the fact that it is believed that Iona, YD etc are funded by Americans and we have decried this time and time again.

What exactly is the difference between Fundy dollars and Pink dollars at the end of the day?

Is it a case of - you yanks, we don't agree with you so feck off how very dare you interfere in our National Debate but you other yanks we like you so plz send much dosh?

Are we to become nothing but the latest American funded battleground in the war between fundamentalism and social liberalism?

What strikes me as 'idiotic' is to critics our opponents for their foreign funding while accepting it ourselves with no discussion as to the ethics of doing so.

This is balanced, but kinda naive.

People with money and a desire to spread their ideology, will.

A better alternative might be to "fight fire with fire" instead if simply pretending fire isn't an inevitability.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 02:31PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This is balanced, but kinda naive.

People with money and a desire to spread their ideology, will.

A better alternative might be to "fight fire with fire" instead if simply pretending fire isn't an inevitability.

I am far from naive I assure you.

But I am also not willing to have my rights as an Irish citizen become part of an ideological cold war being fought in the U.S. without comment or discussion or acknowledgement that accepting yankee dollars while complaining about our opponents doing likewise is hypocritical.

As for fighting fire with fire - who exactly is paying to fan the flames that could burn us?

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 02:42PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am far from naive I assure you.

But I am also not willing to have my rights as an Irish citizen become part of an ideological cold war being fought in the U.S. without comment or discussion or acknowledgement that accepting yankee dollars while complaining about our opponents doing likewise is hypocritical.

As for fighting fire with fire - who exactly is paying to fan the flames that could burn us?

Firstly, I don't' think you have a choice... I'm not sure why you think you do...?

And if you DON'T then a moral high ground only benefits your opponent.

Unless you think you can ACTUALLY stop US influence then you're kinda fighting the wrong fight.

Annasopra · 06-02-2014 02:46PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have never said that gay couples are "worse" than straight couples. In fact I have said the opposite many times.

That was your preface - followed by loaded and judgemental language and nonsense concerns that were debunked

Annasopra · 06-02-2014 02:49PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No it is not idiotic -(great way to debate by the way - don't deal with what I said just dismiss it as 'idiotic' :rolleyes:)

We here in A&A have often made much of the fact that it is believed that Iona, YD etc are funded by Americans and we have decried this time and time again.

What exactly is the difference between Fundy dollars and Pink dollars at the end of the day?

Is it a case of - you yanks, we don't agree with you so feck off how very dare you interfere in our National Debate but you other yanks we like you so plz send much dosh?

Are we to become nothing but the latest American funded battleground in the war between fundamentalism and social liberalism?

What strikes me as 'idiotic' is to critics our opponents for their foreign funding while accepting it ourselves with no discussion as to the ethics of doing so.

In fairness that has been happening for a looooooooooooong time

GLEN/Marriage equality/TENI/ICCL have all been funded by Atlantic Philanthropies

ewan whose army · 06-02-2014 02:51PM

What gets me is how silly Iona are acting, all they have done is get themselves a heap of bad press (not a bad thing IMO) and making them look like the 1800s throwback body they really are.

If they instead put a response out and try and explain how they aren't the homophobes they appear at least it would be free debate. Sending in the dogs and getting RTE to censor it out is making it look like they can't respond to the idea that they are raging homophobes.

They have no interest in debate, their only interest if forcing their religious beliefs onto others and I am pig sick of this happening. I like a lot of people are not Catholic therefore IONA have no right to campaign against things that effect my life as a gay person. If being gay is such a problem then don't have gay marriage in a Catholic church, however this attitude should never be allowed to affect people with nothing to do with them.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 02:58PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

What gets me is how silly Iona are acting, all they have done is get themselves a heap of bad press (not a bad thing IMO) and making them look like the 1800s throwback body they really are.

If they instead put a response out and try and explain how they aren't the homophobes they appear at least it would be free debate. Sending in the dogs and getting RTE to censor it out is making it look like they can't respond to the idea that they are raging homophobes.

They have no interest in debate, their only interest if forcing their religious beliefs onto others and I am pig sick of this happening. I like a lot of people are not Catholic therefore IONA have no right to campaign against things that effect my life as a gay person. If being gay is such a problem then don't have gay marriage in a Catholic church, however this attitude should never be allowed to affect people with nothing to do with them.

This behaviour makes sense in context, and it's not surprising.

They can't WIN a debate. The Irish people are moving AWAY from their position. These sort of victories are all they have left.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 03:02PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Firstly, I don't' think you have a choice... I'm not sure why you think you do...?

And if you DON'T then a moral high ground only benefits your opponent.

Unless you think you can ACTUALLY stop US influence then you're kinda fighting the wrong fight.

We always have a choice. We may not like the choices but they still exist.

Now we have the choice to discuss the ethics of using an influx of potentially large amounts of yankee dollars to help combat the yankee dollars funding Iona as mature, reasoning adults where we weigh the pros and cons or we can shrug our shoulders and say 'ah shure, that's just the way things are and we have (in your words) 'no choice' but to accept that status quo.

I have never been one for accepting the 'shure, that's just the way things are' argument and I find it a bit strange that someone who is pro-equality is now advocating that view point.

To say we need to embrace, without discussion, one status quo in order to combat another status quo is a bit...bizarre.. to my way of thinking.

I accept the inevitability of U.S involvement - I do not accept that we shouldn't self-examine and consider if we are behaving ethically given our criticism of Iona for doing the exact same thing...

As for the moral high ground - I personally, and I can speak only for myself - would prefer to be up there alone than be a hypocrite. That is my choice.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 03:03PM

mango salsa wrote: »

In fairness that has been happening for a looooooooooooong time

GLEN/Marriage equality/TENI/ICCL have all been funded by Atlantic Philanthropies

Oh I know that.

I just find the reluctance to debate the ethics interesting.

ewan whose army · 06-02-2014 03:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh I know that.

I just find the reluctance to debate the ethics interesting.

Pride was sponsored by Nissan UK, Google and Apple so its always been this way. Without investors nothing would happen.

SpaceTime · 06-02-2014 03:10PM

I think to be honest, you're looking at this too narrowly.

We are actually having exactly the same debate the Americans are having, just with opinion polling that's closer to a very liberal state in the US rather than the bible belt.

If there's already US money flowing into the right wing side of the debate, I don't really see how we can just pretend that's not happening and not accept anyone wanting to support the counter argument.

This is a global debate that's going on in most Western countries as one by one they've legalised same sex marriage.

I don't think the circumstances in Ireland are particularly unique, in fact what's remarkable in Ireland is that the opinion polling's far more in favour of same sex marriage than many of our counterparts e.g. the UK and France.

Like it or not, money will flow in and I think it's more important that the argument's presented as clearly as possible and as grass roots as possible from the liberal side.

However, when it comes to legal bills, that's not really campaigning. People are trying to rescue Panti from a potentially very costly legal battle. That's basically where the Pink Euros or Pink Dollars will matter.

Western democracies share a lot of cultural similarities and the democratic world's an open place and the internet's made it a lot smaller.

I'd like Ireland to have a register of lobbyists and a requirement that lobbyists publish their accounts in some way. Other than, there's really very little that we can do to prevent 'outside influence'. I'm not even sure we should prevent 'outside influences', we should simply be able to see exactly what those influences are in an open and transparent manner so we can make our own minds up.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 03:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We always have a choice. We may not like the choices but they still exist.

Now we have the choice to discuss the ethics of using an influx of potentially large amounts of yankee dollars to help combat the yankee dollars funding Iona as mature, reasoning adults where we weigh the pros and cons or we can shrug our shoulders and say 'ah shure, that's just the way things are and we have (in your words) 'no choice' but to accept that status quo.

I have never been one for accepting the 'shure, that's just the way things are' argument and I find it a bit strange that someone who is pro-equality is now advocating that view point.

To say we need to embrace, without discussion, one status quo in order to combat another status quo is a bit...bizarre.. to my way of thinking.

I accept the inevitability of U.S involvement - I do not accept that we shouldn't self-examine and consider if we are behaving ethically given our criticism of Iona for doing the exact same thing...

As for the moral high ground - I personally, and I can speak only for myself - would prefer to be up there alone than be a hypocrite. That is my choice.

But you don't. It's nice to think you do, but you don't.

YOU can't choice if Iona is sponsored by US groups. You just plain can't.

YOU can choose if you support groups, based on who funds them, but that's about it.

On the other hand, people that want to win a fight can behave hypocritically if it suits them, and many do. That's their choice and they live with the consequences.

But no, you personally don't have a say in whether Iona gets outside funding. And you know that.

Cabaal · 06-02-2014 03:12PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This behaviour makes sense in context, and it's not surprising.

They can't WIN a debate. The Irish people are moving AWAY from their position. These sort of victories are all they have left.

Indeed they are,

Last October, a questionnaire was sent out by the Vatican as it sought to prepare a Synod on the family. The hope was that the survey would attract the widest possible response from Catholics around the world. However, the questionnaire was so complex the ACP decided to put a simplified version on its website.

The refined questionnaire attracted answers from 1,500 people, including 173 priests. The ACP was not surprised that the majority of respondents (71%) were aged 46-75 and were church-goers.

When 70% of those surveyed say marriage equality is somewhat important or highly important to them you know Iona are out of touch

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0201/ireland/priests-say-church-out-of-touch-on-family-planning-257326.html

Iona are fighting a loosing battle on this one,

Pherekydes · 06-02-2014 03:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That sig is so far up it's own arse. I'm willing to bet some moron from a right-wing media outlet coined it.

Peter Hitchens, no less.

The full quote is “Liberals use the bigotry of defamation of an opposite opinion rather than the willingness to listen to it or be prepared to debate it. Liberal bigotry is worst of all, because it thinks it’s so enlightened!”

The omission of the first two words makes it grammatically incorrect.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 03:16PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed they are,

When 70% of those surveyed say marriage equality is somewhat important or highly important to them you know Iona are out of touch

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0201/ireland/priests-say-church-out-of-touch-on-family-planning-257326.html

Iona are fighting a loosing battle on this one,

Yep... it's the same sort of battle against demographic changes that the GOP is facing in the US.

A moment like this means that we do need to decide if - once the fringers are well and fully gone - if we want the same old same old options to fill the vacuum they inevitably leave behind.

You can see that in the US where there's a genuine push toward the left... people are aware that the GOpis basically down to deep pockets of a few rich dinosaurs and dirty tricks...

SpaceTime · 06-02-2014 03:28PM

The thing in Ireland though is that there isn't really a hard right in politics like there is in the US as there isn't a vote for it.

Also the PR-STV voting system doesn't restrict us to two choices.

So it would indicate the electorate is highly, highly centrist.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 03:28PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think to be honest, you're looking at this too narrowly.

We are actually having exactly the same debate the Americans are having, just with opinion polling that's closer to a very liberal state in the US rather than the bible belt.

If there's already US money flowing into the right wing side of the debate, I don't really see how we can just pretend that's not happening and not accept anyone wanting to support the counter argument.

This is a global debate that's going on in most Western countries as one by one they've legalised same sex marriage.

I don't think the circumstances in Ireland are particularly unique, in fact what's remarkable in Ireland is that the opinion polling's far more in favour of same sex marriage than many of our counterparts e.g. the UK and France.

Like it or not, money will flow in and I think it's more important that the argument's presented as clearly as possible and as grass roots as possible from the liberal side.

However, when it comes to legal bills, that's not really campaigning. People are trying to rescue Panti from a potentially very costly legal battle. That's basically where the Pink Euros or Pink Dollars will matter.

Western democracies share a lot of cultural similarities and the democratic world's an open place and the internet's made it a lot smaller.

I'd like Ireland to have a register of lobbyists and a requirement that lobbyists publish their accounts in some way. Other than, there's really very little that we can do to prevent 'outside influence'. I'm not even sure we should prevent 'outside influences', we should simply be able to see exactly what those influences are in an open and transparent manner so we can make our own minds up.

I agree completely and thank you for your considered response.

What I am questioning is why the reluctance to debate the ethics of criticising Iona for using yankee dollars while accepting yankee dollars ourselves?

Perhaps because we know we are being hypocritical and we don't like that so dodge the issue - another Iona tactic btw....

I stated that this made me uncomfortable and my opinion was called 'idiotic' - thems fighting words

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 03:32PM

By the way - The Gay Agenda has invaded Liveline.

There are Irish Mammies talking about their Gay sons and how it feels when those sons leave Ireland because they cannot live in such a homophobic society coming out of the woodwork now...

SpaceTime · 06-02-2014 03:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree completely and thank you for your considered response.

What I am questioning is why the reluctance to debate the ethics of criticising Iona for using yankee dollars while accepting yankee dollars ourselves?

Perhaps because we know we are being hypocritical and we don't like that so dodge the issue - another Iona tactic btw....

I stated that this made me uncomfortable and my opinion was called 'idiotic' - thems fighting words

Yup. I agree too.
I see your point on the issue.

I think though it's a much broader one that requires reform of lobbyists and possibly of registered charities to make finances much more transparent across the board.

Ireland's full of very opaque accounting across many of these areas.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 03:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree completely and thank you for your considered response.

What I am questioning is why the reluctance to debate the ethics of criticising Iona for using yankee dollars while accepting yankee dollars ourselves?

Perhaps because we know we are being hypocritical and we don't like that so dodge the issue - another Iona tactic btw....

I stated that this made me uncomfortable and my opinion was called 'idiotic' - thems fighting words

It's idiotic in the sense that you can't stop Iona from taking the money. Once they have, you're fighting the fight in front of you, not the one you previously lost.

Obama had the same issue. He pledged to take public funding then, when he saw what he was up against, he changed his mind.... and won.

lazygal · 06-02-2014 03:36PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the way - The Gay Agenda has invaded Liveline.

There are Irish Mammies talking about their Gay sons and how it feels when those sons leave Ireland because they cannot live in such a homophobic society coming out of the woodwork now...

It could be the Ann Lovett moment for the mothers of gay children.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 03:37PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's idiotic in the sense that you can't stop Iona from taking the money. Once they have, you're fighting the fight in front of you, not the one you previously lost.

Obama had the same issue. He pledged to take public funding then, when he saw what he was up against, he changed his mind.... and won.

Where did I say anything about stopping Iona taking the money?

I said - several times now - that for us to criticise Iona for taking the money while also taking the money ourselves is hypocritical to my way of thinking.

And less of the 'Idiotic' if you don't mind.

Cabaal · 06-02-2014 03:40PM

How about we can say Iona can take money, as long as we can look at their books and see who's funding them

Its only fair to see who's funding the lobby group,

Tim Robbins · 06-02-2014 03:41PM

Gays should be allowed marry. But marriage is almost meaningless now. You don't to marry to adopt, have children, you get a tiny tax credit of one of you doesn't work, your creche or childminder will see your kids more than both parents combined.

It is so meaningless, I wonder what all the fuzz is about.

I think the religious grabble on our schools is a far bigger issue. That's screw way more people over.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 03:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I say anything about stopping Iona taking the money?

I said - several times now - that for us to criticise Iona for taking the money while also taking the money ourselves is hypocritical to my way of thinking.

And less of the 'Idiotic' if you don't mind.

Sure, don't be so worried about the word idiotic... it's not a description of you, but of your opinion... if it's not idiotic then defend it and you'll be vindicated..

On to the substance:

That criticism reflected the past - they took the money/are taking the money.

It's not a debate that will be won.

Adapt and move on.

No one particularly cares honestly. Well, almost no one.

They care more about issues like homophobia than if we use foreign money to combat it in the media, because they rightly see it as inevitable... once one side takes it the other side is more or less bound to eventually.

Cabaal · 06-02-2014 03:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There are Irish Mammies talking about their Gay sons and how it feels when those sons leave Ireland because they cannot live in such a homophobic society coming out of the woodwork now...

This entire thing is really going to hurt Iona in the long term,

As much as I dislike LiveLine its sometimes a good measure for the mood of a certain amount of society, the fact people are on it talking about hatred they've had to put up with shows how much society is changing

Mark Hamill · 06-02-2014 03:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree completely and thank you for your considered response.

What I am questioning is why the reluctance to debate the ethics of criticising Iona for using yankee dollars while accepting yankee dollars ourselves?

Perhaps because we know we are being hypocritical and we don't like that so dodge the issue - another Iona tactic btw....

I stated that this made me uncomfortable and my opinion was called 'idiotic' - thems fighting words

There is a big difference, though, between how each side reacts to the receiving of the money and what the money would be used for. I.e. Iona is incredibly secretive about what money and support they get and from where, and they use that money and support to bus people around from protest to protest and to create misleading, homophobic, articles and claims. Whereas, at least in terms of Panti, all the support (personal or otherwise) has been openly embraced and the offer of money has only been suggested to defend Panti of a defamation case, should she even need it.

I have no problem with money or resources coming from the US, or any other country, to argue for or against gay rights, no more than I would have a problem with money or resources coming from Ireland to fight for or against e.g the Taliban in Afghanistan or Guantanamo bay in the US. People are entitled to have opinions about what goes on in other countries, and if they want to send their money over to help or hinder, then that's their own choice. What I have a problem with is groups in any country lying about their resources in order to imply that their support is home grown, when it is almost entirely not.

lazygal · 06-02-2014 03:45PM

Is Liveline on the gay agenda?

Cabaal · 06-02-2014 03:45PM

lazygal wrote: »

Is Liveline on the gay agenda?

I thought it was the gay lobby?
:pac:

lazygal · 06-02-2014 03:47PM

Cabaal wrote: »

I thought it was the gay lobby?
:pac:

No, the lobby is where they decide on the gay agenda.

Iona vs Panti

Comments