Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

SpaceTime · 07-02-2014 01:21AM

Human rights are human rights and last time I checked I'm human, so I'm pretty annoyed.

Denying any human or group of humans their fundamental rights offends me. I don't care what the motivation is.

You don't have to be gay to be offended by homophobia, you don't have to be female to be offended by misogyny, you don't have to be male to be offended by misandry, you don't have to be of a particular race to be offended by racism, you can be a local and be offended by xenophobia.

....

I'd also point out that same sex marriage has widespread support in Ireland according to reputable opinion polling agencies.
When it comes to this issue, the single most important thing is going to be mobilising that big vote.

dale_scully · 07-02-2014 01:22AM

seenitall wrote: »

A bomb thrower - I like the sound of that! Makes me feel all capable and dangerous!

The point was relevant to me and to what I was saying about my support for gay rights. I acknowledge you disagree with me, but I don't want to derail the thread by expanding on it and getting into a discussion about abortion on a thread about homophobia.

Surely not that controversial?

you brought up the savina tragedy in a thread which had nothing to do with it , don't be all faux coy now and deny you didn't want to get off point

its tedious

K-9 · 07-02-2014 01:23AM

dale_scully wrote: »

then don't be a bomb thrower ( fire in irrelevant points and then run off to leave a mark )

its an established fact that she died due to a series of incompetent steps by medical staff in galway

So the fear that medical staff had of transgressing our abortion laws had nothing to do with it?

The problem is, medical experts in hospitals are constrained from making medically correct and prudent decisions because of fear of our archaic laws.

There are still people who defend Patrick Neary and Drogheda. They'll find some crumb in the findings and cling onto it for dear life.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 01:29AM

mango salsa wrote: »

He's very mysoginist too (see twitter where he called women who had abortions murderesses) and admires Michelle Bachman

http://twitter.com/Nerin_/status/430814997875154944/photo/1

It's striking that one can't call people "homophobic", even in a highly qualified and nuanced manner, but one can seemingly throw out accusations of criminality, in a way that fails the most basic of tests of fact. That make any sense to anyone? Certainly doesn't to me.

Isn't his use of the very word "murderesses" also gendered in a bizarrely quaint manner?

seenitall · 07-02-2014 01:31AM

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

Human rights are human rights and last time I checked I'm human, so I'm pretty annoyed.

Denying any human or group of humans their fundamental rights offends me. I don't care what the motivation is.

You don't have to be gay to be offended by homophobia, you don't have to be female to be offended by misogyny, you don't have to be male to be offended by misandry, you don't have to be of a particular race to be offended by racism, you can be a local and be offended by xenophobia.

I absolutely agree, as I said marriage equality is important to me and that's why I've been posting in its support in this and several similar threads, (although some posters can get me fierce annoyed and like I don't want to bother any more :pac:).

I was just explaining the basis on which this issue has become much more personal to me than perhaps it would if I were someone who could be sure to be untouched by any religion-based injustice in this society.

seenitall · 07-02-2014 01:34AM

No

dale_scully wrote: »

you brought up the savina tragedy in a thread which had nothing to do with it , don't be all faux coy now and deny you didn't want to get off point

its tedious

Yawn... tedious indeed. You're the one who has kept harping on about Savita, so you can drop the offended act.

SpaceTime · 07-02-2014 01:39AM

I don't think anyone needs to point out just how conservative Ireland was thanks to the influence of various conservative groups that were fully embedded into the state's law-making processes.

Modern Irish people get all offended when Americans, or British or French or whoever assumes that Ireland's some kind of social backwater. The reality of the situation is that until very recently it was and their opinions are coming from a perfectly reasonable assessment of recent Irish history.

We'd a ban on the sale of contraceptives form 1935 until 1978!
From 1973 until 1978, only married couples (with a prescription) could legally use contraceptives but it was still illegal to purchase / sell them!

From 1978 you could buy them but only for 'bone fide family planning or ADEQUATE medical reasons' and only with a prescription from a doctor!

From 1985, you could buy condoms, but only in specific places and only if over 18 (despite that being older than the age of consent)

They weren't widely available in anything approaching a normal way until 1992/93!!!!

The Censorship of Publicans Board (Orwellian to say the least) even went as far as banning the Irish Family Planning Association's booklet on family planning in 1976! The censorship acts actually contained ""the unnatural prevention of conception" as one of the grounds for banning publications!

....

Divorce was prohibited by constitutional law from 1937 until 1995!!! And the first divorce wasn't granted until 1997! That's only 17 years ago.

....

On gay rights : It's only been legal to be gay here for the last 21 years!
We retained ridiculously obsolete Victorian law from 1861 until then.

To put that into context, Star Trek the Next Generation was cancelled the following year. The Simpsons was 6 years old and at its peak. Friends was about to launch on TV.

Bill Clinton was in office!

Eircell digital GSM was on air!

....

Those are only three of many, many issues but, I think it very clearly demonstrates both how ridiculous we seemed to the outside world and how screwed up we actually were!

We absolutely 100% have to oppose the kinds of forces that kept us in those kinds of situations for decades.

Ireland's changed massively even irrecognisably in the last 20 years and largely in an extremely positive way.

When it comes to this referendum, just think about where we've come from whether you'd really ever want to go back to that crazy old backwards place that we used to call 'home'.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:39AM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah come on, try harder. if you aren't going to contribute, at least be witty and original when trying to be offensive.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:41AM

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd also point out that same sex marriage has widespread support in Ireland according to reputable opinion polling agencies.
When it comes to this issue, the single most important thing is going to be mobilising that big vote.

This. Come the election, everybody on the pro-side should make an effort to encourage at least one apathetic supporter to go out and vote.

PopePalpatine · 07-02-2014 01:41AM

No

K-9 wrote: »

Look at Quinn and groups like Iona or Youth Defence, all right people under 45/50 are more likely to be more liberal than a generation ago, but we give the oulder folk a hard time. You have god bothering daily mass goers, nothing you can do about that, but you've plenty of older people who had gay sons or daughters, unmarried daughters and sons, many divorced as well.

That reminds me...we haven't heard much from Jugendschutz in the news recently. Maybe they're off on holiday with some Russian friends?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 01:42AM

seenitall wrote: »

My mother recently voted No to gay marriage in the referendum in my country of origin. When I asked her why she voted that way, the response was "I am Catholic", and then the usual about God-man-woman and "they can have something called something else, but not MARRIAGE". I didn't bother talking any more than that, it was after the fact anyway, and I don't have the best of relationships with her in the first place.

My brother voted for the inclusion, though, and I would hope that, like the abortion here, it is at least somewhat a matter of biological, eh, 'turnover' in the population. :pac:

Sadly, the referendum affirmed my country as backward and nearer to Russia than France ideologically. Siht.

I think Ireland will change things for itself, though.

So are all who are for SSM, also for killing the unborn which is what abortion is?

I just wonder as it is the same people thanking eachother in this thread, time and time again, and I just wonder if the same people who thank eachother also have the same opinion in regards to abortion.

SpaceTime · 07-02-2014 01:42AM

floggg wrote: »

This. Come the election, everybody on the pro-side should make an effort to encourage at least one apathetic supporter to go out and vote.

Make sure they register now and also make sure that students are made aware that they can register for a postal vote if living away from their home constituency !!

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 01:44AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Most paedophiles are men, in the Australian case, they paid a Russian woman to have a child for them so they didn't have to adopt or foster.
They were reported as being the perfect family in Australian media, the reporter said after the convictions, if they had only known the truth.

No, nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexual men can marry heterosexual men if they also have an interest in children.

You seem to simply be making your herrings bigger and redder, the more your errors of logic (not to mention common decency) are pointed out. SSM is now supposedly a front for het paedophiles, despite there being no requirement to be in any sort of marriage to adopt?

While child sex abusers -- and sex abusers full-stop! -- are indeed predominantly men, it's not like female "accomplices" are unknown, either. Unless your solution is to phase men out entirely (in which case, welcome to the "gendercidal" wing of separatist radical feminism) it's far from clear what the logical conclusion of your "argument" (or rather, appeal to prejudice and moral panic) is. Possibly moving to Russia, given your deliberate homosexual/paedophilia conflation.

Same sex marriage doesn't mean the couple have to be homosexual.

Perhaps your mind would be put at ease if the quaint old "evidence of consummation" test were reintroduced.

K-9 · 07-02-2014 01:45AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

We'd a ban on the sale of contraceptives form 1935 until 1978!
From 1973 until 1978, only married couples (with a prescription) could legally use contraceptives but it was still illegal to purchase / sell them!

From 1978 you could buy them but only for 'bone fide family planning or ADEQUATE medical reasons' and only with a prescription from a doctor!

CJH's Irish solution to an Irish problem!

Look how that worked out.

seenitall · 07-02-2014 01:49AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

So are all who are for SSM, also for killing the unborn which is what abortion is?

I just wonder as it is the same people thanking eachother in this thread, time and time again, and I just wonder if the same people who thank eachother also have the same opinion in regards to abortion.

Ah RKK, you're just a gift that keeps on giving, aren't you?

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 01:52AM

Won't someone think of the bayyybeeees?

Femme_Fatale · 07-02-2014 01:54AM

RobertKK wrote: »

So are all who are for SSM, also for killing the unborn which is what abortion is?

I just wonder as it is the same people thanking eachother in this thread, time and time again, and I just wonder if the same people who thank eachother also have the same opinion in regards to abortion.

People get really ass-hurt over thanking.

Yes it's likely that those who are pro-choice are also pro same-sex marriage, due to realising life is not an episode of The Waltons where life rolls along simplistically and men are only with women, and nobody gets raped, makes mistakes, has accidents.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 01:55AM

No

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Won't someone think of the bayyybeeees?

Which ones?

The ones still is side a mobile incubator woman or the ones with only the one legal (gay) parent?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 01:55AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

You seem to simply be making your herrings bigger and redder, the more your errors of logic (not to mention common decency) are pointed out. SSM is now supposedly a front for het paedophiles, despite there being no requirement to be in any sort of marriage to adopt?

While child sex abusers -- and sex abusers full-stop! -- are indeed predominantly men, it's not like female "accomplices" are unknown, either. Unless your solution is to phase men out entirely (in which case, welcome to the "gendercidal" wing of separatist radical feminism) it's far from clear what the logical conclusion of your "argument" (or rather, appeal to prejudice and moral panic) is. Possibly moving to Russia, given your deliberate homosexual/paedophilia conflation.

Perhaps your mind would be put at ease if the quaint old "evidence of consummation" test were reintroduced.

The state doesn't care if you consummate a marriage or not. It is not like a SSM has the possibility to produce children.

Two same sex friends could have a civil partnership or a SSM if introduced, for tax benefits for example.

SpaceTime · 07-02-2014 01:56AM

That's scary just looking at some dates.

Ireland's first divorce was granted barely 1 year before boards.ie launched!!!
That's how short a time ago it was.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 02:00AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

People get really ass-hurt over thanking.

Yes it's likely that those who are pro-choice are also pro same-sex marriage, due to realising life is not an episode of The Waltons where life rolls along simplistically and men are only with women, and nobody gets raped, makes mistakes, has accidents.

We have in some countries where girls are aborted for being girls, technology has given us the ability to know the sex before birth, what if a gene or something was found and it showed someone was likely to be homosexual and then like the girl abortions, we would have abortions based on sexuality of the child.
I think it would be totally wrong, but being pro-choice, you are saying it is the choice of the woman....
Human life is being viewed as disposable based on gender at present, maybe sexuality in the future. When people say they are pro-choice they leave it open for these things to happen, because you never see pro-choice people out protesting over it.

K-9 · 07-02-2014 02:01AM

RobertKK wrote: »

So are all who are for SSM, also for killing the unborn which is what abortion is?

I just wonder as it is the same people thanking eachother in this thread, time and time again, and I just wonder if the same people who thank eachother also have the same opinion in regards to abortion.

I'm quite conservative when it comes to abortion, (us leftie liberals as defined by people like you have open minds) I just don't like the idea of it, but I'm a realist. Trying to think of the quote I read on Boards, abortion numbers should be as minimal as possible, but as safe and available as possible.

The current situation we have is a disgrace and typical of what social conservativism means in reality. We've an idyllic world that abortion doesn't happen in Ireland, Quinn would approve, he doesn't care about the women leaving for England every week.

I also lay squarely at the foot of people like Quinn, problems like women having to go to England to abort foetuses that will never see life, bringing the remains back in suitcases and cardboard boxes.

darced · 07-02-2014 02:02AM

This post has been deleted.

seenitall · 07-02-2014 02:02AM

No

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's scary just looking at some dates.

Ireland's first divorce was granted barely 1 year before boards.ie launched!!!
That's how short a time ago it was.

Yes, that's something that ye do have to be proud of. No matter how frustrated I get, I have to say seeing those years like that, things here are progressing at a great pace actually, unlike my country which has unfortunately been turning backwards with the fall of communism and the advent of democracy.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 02:03AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

The state doesn't care if you consummate a marriage or not. It is not like a SSM has the possibility to produce children.

Two same sex friends could have a civil partnership or a SSM if introduced, for tax benefits for example.

Consummation does not equal pregnancy.

And the State does 'care' if the Marriage is consummated or not. It cares so much that there is a legal mechanism whereby unconsummated marriages are voidable.

Voidable marriage

To prove to the court that your marriage is voidable, you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage. You cannot obtain a declaration of nullity because one of you is infertile or because one of you is simply refusing to consummate the marriage. It must be the case that one of you is incapable of sexual intercourse.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

A little bit of research on your part would really save you from making an eejit of yourself.

Femme_Fatale · 07-02-2014 02:09AM

RobertKK wrote: »

We have in some countries where girls are aborted for being girls, technology has given us the ability to know the sex before birth, what if a gene or something was found and it showed someone was likely to be homosexual and then like the girl abortions, we would have abortions based on sexuality of the child.
I think it would be totally wrong, but being pro-choice, you are saying it is the choice of the woman....
Human life is being viewed as disposable based on gender at present, maybe sexuality in the future. When people say they are pro-choice they leave it open for these things to happen, because you never see pro-choice people out protesting over it.

That's some leap. I'm not in favour of abortion because of the gender or sexuality. I'm not in favour of late-term abortion. To be honest I would prefer if a woman didn't opt for it and for it to be an absolute last resort. It's not something I believe should be treated as cavalierly (which I doubt is the case the vast majority of the time). But I believe people who should have the choice if they are in dire straits, e.g. after rape/incest, if there are severe health implications (up to and including death) for the mother.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 02:10AM

K-9 wrote: »

I'm quite conservative when it comes to abortion, (us leftie liberals as defined by people like you have open minds) I just don't like the idea of it, but I'm a realist. Trying to think of the quote I read on Boards, abortion numbers should be as minimal as possible, but as safe and available as possible.

The current situation we have is a disgrace and typical of what social conservativism means in reality. We've an idyllic world that abortion doesn't happen in Ireland, Quinn would approve, he doesn't care about the women leaving for England every week.

I also lay squarely at the foot of people like Quinn, problems like women having to go to England to abort foetuses that will never see life, bringing the remains back in suitcases and cardboard boxes.

I suspect most cases of abortion by Irish women abroad is done because they don't want to have a baby, rather than being exceptional cases and will not want to have any remains to bring home.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 02:14AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I suspect most cases of abortion by Irish women abroad is done because they don't want to have a baby, rather than being exceptional cases and will not want to have any remains to bring home.

Are abortions especially prevalent among Lesbians which is why we are discussing it in a thread about whether or not Iona is homophobic?

Oh - and do you wish to admit you were wrong when you said the State didn't care if a marriage is consummated?

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 02:16AM

road_high wrote: »

My brother was telling me on was the radio talking sh!te (as usual) last week or sometime, saying Ireland should get rid of all of all our multinationals and the economy would grow by itself; this is the type of idiot we are talking about here. And a money-grabbing free loader to boot.

I missed that, but doesn't sound like any sort of loss.

It's hardly a major part of his "output", but obviously Waters doesn't want to just sound like an interchangeable Hard Right Orthodoxy type. It's part of the "brand" that he not be seen to be toeing the line on the usual right-wing economics blather. Of course, given his more-Catholic-than-thou line these days, Socialism per se isn't really going to be an option.

So, he's left basically as a Hard Right Orthodoxy type with a bad haircut and really terrible economics tacked on as "distinctive features".

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 02:18AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

That's some leap. I'm not in favour of abortion because of the gender or sexuality. I'm not in favour of late-term abortion. To be honest I would prefer if a woman didn't opt for it and for it to be an absolute last resort. It's not something I believe should be treated as cavalierly (which I doubt is the case the vast majority of the time). But I believe people who should have the choice if they are in dire straits, e.g. after rape/incest, if there are severe health implications (up to and including death) for the mother.

The problem is if one says they are pro-choice it leaves it open given one can take anything from the term 'pro-choice'.

The reality in your case is you are mostly pro-life but pro-choice in certain areas. Hope I am not being unfair when I say that.

I apologise for what may have come across like a leap to judge. Just the term pro-choice can mean totally allow abortion whenever to wanting it but limited in nature.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments