Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 04:40AM

Double pooooooost...

JackF1 wrote: »

I refuse to believe that the moral decline brought on by my sexual orientation is what will break society. Society is already on its way and I can tell you my fellow gays had nothing to do with it.

So you're copping guilty to several charges of "moral decline", but your plea in mitigation is "sure, there's others that are worse"? I can relate to that...

<duck, cover, flee>

People feeling the need to get married owing to peer pressure and choosing the wrong partner!
Allowing domestic abuse (mostly non physical I would say) continue.
Many men continuing their childhoods into adulthood.
Rising living costs resulting in two incomes being necessary to put food on the table.
Parents not disciplining and nurturing their children.

Not sure if you're saying these are directly related. Equal marriage as a "route to socialisation" of men, as is often claimed of het marriage? It'd be a theory, at least...

One might perhaps characterise the broader "liberal agenda" as "equality all round", and one might frame much of the above in those terms, as well as equal marriage. But that's not exactly a straightforward proposition, as a cursory glance at any of the usual "progressive politics circular firing squad" scenarios will attest.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 06:21AM

Just watched the repeat of Prime Time on this. Quinn and Manning full of spluttering indignation and Orwellian nonsense. Paddy Manning claiming yet again to be a "Libertarian". Rather than "I'm a Libertarian and so we should get the state out of marriage", this week he's going with "I'm a Libertarian and so we should defend the religious definition of marriage as being central to all our family law." I realize that it's traditional for Libertarians to claim that all their political positions flow from a few inviolable principles, and then come to utterly contradictory conclusions about it... but PM seems to go one better, come to the same conclusion twice from opposites premises, and with a straight (as it were) face call them both "Libertarian". Me arse.

Let's hope that Rory O'Neill is taking legal advice over these flat assertions that he "defamed" people. Sounds to me rather, well, defamatory!

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 08:42AM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aw Petal. Do we bother you that much?

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 08:51AM

No

alaimacerc wrote: »

Shades of the British Tory harumphing about equal marriage, suggesting he could marry his son as an inheritance tax dodge. Eeeeew.

So, again, sounds like your objection (du jour) is that it would be open to "bogus marriages". In much the same way that, uh, heterosexual marriage is. Really not see why you begin to think that any of this cuts any ice whatsoever.

Actually that was the Actor Jeremy Irons

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 08:53AM

No

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah for feck sake, this is why we're havng all the bad weather? I'll be complaining to the gay lobby about this :mad:

Did you not hear from UKIP? God caused all the bad weather. She was angry at Panti

floggg · 07-02-2014 09:09AM

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.

Ugh. Then why can a CIVIL marriage be annulled for lack of consummation.

A man and a woman can marry for tax benefits.

Your point?

floggg · 07-02-2014 09:11AM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Believe me, the last thing I wnt is to hear more from you.

But if you are going to post, a bit of variety would be nice.

floggg · 07-02-2014 09:19AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Have I not the right to reply to somebody, or do I need your permission now?

Yes, but you never use use said right to respond to any requests for a logical explanation of your claims.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 09:29AM

No

So... that Iona lot, eh? Still pretty homophobic, amirite?

Links234 · 07-02-2014 09:37AM

No

Sarky wrote: »

So... that Iona lot, eh? Still pretty homophobic, amirite?

The homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed.

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 09:40AM

No

Links234 wrote: »

The homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed.

Well maybe not.... I mean they didn't have gas chambers or concentration camps

AerynSun · 07-02-2014 09:45AM

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Did you not hear from UKIP? God caused all the bad weather. She was angry at Panti

Ah no now. In fairness... she was angry at the man we can't name, the one whose name is the same as the substance that Herself in Her Divine Wisdom saw fit to rain out of the heavens in full deluge all over Cork and Limerick and other parts of the country that get no coverage by the media in the days following that unnameable man taking hush money for not hushing.

amdublin · 07-02-2014 09:48AM

No

Considering the reason David Quinn gave for suing Rory last night... could all 89/90% who voted in this poll and are saying yes Iona are homophobic be sued??

Are they going to sue 90% of the country one by one?

Panti just annunciated what a lot of us are thinking judging by this thread.

Damn you RTE for settling *shakes fist*

(Reminder complaints@RTE.ie - even just a two/three liner)

Terry1985 · 07-02-2014 09:51AM

Links234 wrote: »

The homophobiest bunch of homophobes that ever homophobed.

I wonder is your view endorsed by the legal advisors of Boards?

efb · 07-02-2014 09:53AM

No

Terry1985 wrote: »

I wonder is your view endorsed by the legal advisors of Boards?

Is that a threat?

Terry1985 · 07-02-2014 09:55AM

efb wrote: »

Is that a threat?

I see what you're trying to do there... Pretty underhanded. I'm not taking any legal action.

No, I just wonder whether moderators should push their agenda so hard at the risk of the rest of boards.

Daith · 07-02-2014 09:58AM

No

Terry1985 wrote: »

I see what you're trying to do there... Pretty underhanded. I'm not taking any legal action.

No, I just wonder whether moderators should push their agenda so hard at the risk of the rest of boards.

It's people honest opinion that Iona are homophobes. They oppose equal marriage. They have opposed civil partnership. They opposed joint LGBT adoption. I don't think they're too fond of gay teachers in schools.

It's an honest robust debate.

efb · 07-02-2014 10:01AM

No

Terry1985 wrote: »

I see what you're trying to do there... Pretty underhanded. I'm not taking any legal action.

No, I just wonder whether moderators should push their agenda so hard at the risk of the rest of boards.

You are implying plenty

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 10:04AM

No

Terry1985 wrote: »

I see what you're trying to do there... Pretty underhanded. I'm not taking any legal action.

No, I just wonder whether moderators should push their agenda so hard at the risk of the rest of boards.

If you think there is a risk then report the post.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 10:11AM

No

Implying legal threats tends to get a thread locked/deleted pretty sharpish. It's a great way of shutting down debate, if you don't mind being known as the guy that did it. Not that anyone would resort to that when their arguments have been laughed off the stage. That'd be a dick move. Look what happened David Quinn and his team of flying monkies.

Terry1985 · 07-02-2014 10:17AM

When the thread has descended into mods just directly name calling I think the debating stage is long over.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 10:19AM

No

Which mod would this be?

humanji · 07-02-2014 10:22AM

Get back on topic.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 11:38AM

Ivana Bacik hogged the debate on that side of the table last night, the man beside her didn't get to say much.
Pro-SSM people should worry if she is going to be part of the public face for the pro-SSM side in the referendum.
She is not a vote getter in the public, given she was the running mate of Eamon Gilmore last election and he got over 20k votes and she still managed not to get elected.

The fact is David Quinn or Paddy Manning will not turn off people who are voting no, but Ivana is associated with being very pro liberal abortion, anti-religious in terms of schools and when the department of education had a vote at some schools, a lot of parents wanted religious schools.
On the otherside of that argument, the man beside her wouldn't turn off the voters.

I don't think having Ivana Bacik being part of the public face for SSM is good for the people who want SSM. She is very divisive.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 11:42AM

Sarky wrote: »

Implying legal threats tends to get a thread locked/deleted pretty sharpish. It's a great way of shutting down debate, if you don't mind being known as the guy that did it. Not that anyone would resort to that when their arguments have been laughed off the stage. That'd be a dick move. Look what happened David Quinn and his team of flying monkies.

David Quinn won against RTE, and then invited him and others back for debate.

I noticed Panti was invited on last night but didn't turn up, yet some had problems when the people he defamed didn't turn up on the Brendan O'Connor's program...

Pat Rabbitte wants to make it easier to defame people or call people names, given the left seem to like name calling....flying monkies in this case.

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 11:44AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Ivana Bacik hogged the debate on that side of the table last night, the man beside her didn't get to say much.
Pro-SSM people should worry if she is going to be part of the public face for the pro-SSM side in the referendum.
She is not a vote getter in the public, given she was the running mate of Eamon Gilmore last election and he got over 20k votes and she still managed not to get elected.

The fact is David Quinn or Paddy Manning will not turn off people who are voting no, but Ivana is associated with being very pro liberal abortion, anti-religious in terms of schools and when the department of education had a vote at some schools, a lot of parents wanted religious schools.
On the otherside of that argument, the man beside her wouldn't turn off the voters.

I don't think having Ivana Bacik being part of the public face for SSM is good for the people who want SSM. She is very divisive.

Oh wow, thanks for the advice on how to best campaign for the thing you don't want us to campaign for!

SUPER sound of you.

Ash.J.Williams · 07-02-2014 11:46AM

No

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh wow, thanks for the advice on how to best campaign for the thing you don't want us to campaign for!

SUPER sound of you.

"look i don't approve of you people...but let me give you some advice.."
ha

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 11:47AM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh wow, thanks for the advice on how to best campaign for the thing you don't want us to campaign for!

SUPER sound of you.

Just telling it like it is, Ivana Bacik is not the best person to have out in any debate fighting your side.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 11:48AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

"look i don't approve of you people...but let me give you some advice.."
ha

Do you think Ivana Bacik is popular among the public?

Even when Labour were on a high electorally, the public wouldn't elect her.

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 11:48AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Just telling it like it is, Ivana Bacik is not the best person to have out in any debate fighting your side.

We'll be sure to take that into consideration. Totally.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments