Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 11:49AM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

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

I am sure you will....

Delirium · 07-02-2014 11:50AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

There was no case so not sure how you could say Quinn won.

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...

There has been no judgement to say Rory defamed anyone.

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.

Why does Rabbitte want it to be easier to prosecute people for defamation?

Ash.J.Williams · 07-02-2014 11:52AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you think Ivana Bacik is popular among the public?

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

she's seems ok to me but yes ...not very successful at winning people over

Links234 · 07-02-2014 11:52AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Who, in your humble opinion, is the best person then?

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2014 11:53AM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Ivana Bacik is not the best person to have out in any debate fighting your side.

Hang on, your side had Paddy Manning on, and you're tut-tutting about Bacik?

Ash.J.Williams · 07-02-2014 11:56AM

No

paddy reminds me of kevin from kevin and perry from the harry enfield show!

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 12:01PM

SW wrote: »

There was no case so not sure how you could say Quinn won.

There has been no judgement to say Rory defamed anyone.

Why does Rabbitte want it to be easier to prosecute people for defamation?

Listened to Pat Rabbitte this morning and he seemed more unsure about RTE winning a case, and that loosening the defamation laws could still have not been enough to avoid what happened.

It seems RTE would have lost in a court case, the people defamed nipped that tactic in the bud, which was a tactic by SSM people to try and silence them in the media and debates via name calling.

I send a text weeks ago into a national radio station and I was reasoned. I had called no one any names, but I hadn't given my full name, if I had I could have sued the station as I was called a bigot for simply not supporting SSM.
It was a text how people from all sides should be respected and that name calling for not supporting SSM was not right.
I was told, I was a bigot simply for not supporting it, one person said I should not vote.
I had serious issues over that - can't debate against SSM or one is a bigot, and then one shouldn't use their democratic right.
This is why I think Panti is wrong, some people are blind to people on the pro-SSM and how they are trying to silence debate.
I would never tell anyone not to vote even if they were voting for what I disagree with. It shows a lack of a good argument when namecalling and telling one not to vote is part of a debate.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 12:05PM

Links234 wrote: »

Who, in your humble opinion, is the best person then?

The man beside her - sorry I forgot his name, but he was calm and came across well, but he got to say very little last night.
He is a candidate for starters.

Delirium · 07-02-2014 12:07PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Listened to Pat Rabbitte this morning and he seemed more unsure about RTE winning a case, and that loosening the defamation laws could still have not been enough to avoid what happened.

Lower the cost of being involved in a defamation case would be a good place to start.

It seems RTE would have lost in a court case, the people defamed nipped that tactic in the bud, which was a tactic by SSM people to try and silence them in the media and debates via name calling.

Again, no one has proven that anyone was defamed. Defamation has to be proven in court. No case has happened. How do you know RTE would have lost the court case? Were you privy to the legal counsel they received?

I send a text weeks ago into a national radio station and I was reasoned. I had called no one any names, but I hadn't given my full name, if I had I could have sued the station as I was called a bigot for simply not supporting SSM.
It was a text how people from all sides should be respected and that name calling for not supporting SSM was not right.
I was told, I was a bigot simply for not supporting it, one person said I should not vote.
I had serious issues over that - can't debate against SSM or one is a bigot, and then one shouldn't use their democratic right.

How could you sue the station for defamation even if you gave your full name? You're not a public figure. Even with your name provided in the text, almost nobody would know it was you.

This is why I think Panti is wrong, some people are blind to people on the pro-SSM and how they are trying to silence debate.
I would never tell anyone not to vote even if they were voting for what I disagree with. It shows a lack of a good argument when namecalling and telling one not to vote is part of a debate.

And much does it show a lack of a good argument by sending legal letters and having video broadcasts censored, as the anti-marriage equality people have done? If anyone is stifling debate, it's them.

20Cent · 07-02-2014 12:09PM

No

The anti ssm side are spending all their time complaining about name calling instead of putting their arguments against ssm. Is that because their arguments are so weak?

I think yes.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 12:09PM

No

Remember, Quinn et al. refused right of reply. They didn't WANT a debate.

efb · 07-02-2014 12:12PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Panti had other appointments BBC etc

floggg · 07-02-2014 12:14PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Can you please stop trying to portray the left/liberals as some sort of homogenous block, or pretending that some people using colourful language on an Internet forum shows that everybody on the "left" are uncivilised.

Moreover, if you are going to bang your drum about the apparent uncivillity of the lefts discourse, can you also address the oft times worse behaviour of commentator on the right. Otherwise you are trying to portray a very false image of the debate.

Right wing/conservative commentators have said some appalling things - including reference to peadophillia (as did you yourself) and bestiality, questioning the parenting and upbringing of countless Irish children and distorting facts and evidence to try and justify those critiques, ascribing malicious intent and purpose to gay relationships (including John Waters), not to mention countess other slurs.

Since you also seem keen to link all left wing causes, you would also need to address the activities of the likes of Youth Defence.

And perhaps you could also address the frequent use of phrases like "liberal nazis" - which apart from being based on a complete lack of understanding of free speech or evident knowledge of what the Nazis were and what they did, is particularly ignorant when used against gay people arguing for their rights, given that gay people were amongst the many victims of the nazis and their concentration camps.

efb · 07-02-2014 12:15PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Fyp

Ash.J.Williams · 07-02-2014 12:15PM

No

"the liberal agenda" aka normality

Sarky · 07-02-2014 12:16PM

No

Reality is well known as having an inherent liberal bias.

TwoShedsJackson · 07-02-2014 12:20PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Says a man who fundamentally disagrees with everything she says.

Zillah · 07-02-2014 12:29PM

No

I suppose it makes perfect sense that the opponents of marriage equality would try to shift the debate to the usage of the word "homophobia" and try to present themselves as bullied or silenced. It's the same reason they start talking about children when that's an entirely different debate. The alternative is to argue against same-sex marriage, and then they sound crazy, ultra-religious or bigoted. Obviously they don't want to do that, it's actually very predictable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

RobertKK: If there was a person who was advocating that black people should not be allowed to marry any white Irish people, do you think it would fair for them to say things like "I was told, I was a bigot simply for not supporting it, one person said I should not vote. I had serious issues over that - can't debate against inter-racial marriage or one is a bigot, and then one shouldn't use their democratic right."

Is it fair for them to complain that they get called racist?

floggg · 07-02-2014 12:31PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Listened to Pat Rabbitte this morning and he seemed more unsure about RTE winning a case, and that loosening the defamation laws could still have not been enough to avoid what happened.

It seems RTE would have lost in a court case, the people defamed nipped that tactic in the bud, which was a tactic by SSM people to try and silence them in the media and debates via name calling.

I send a text weeks ago into a national radio station and I was reasoned. I had called no one any names, but I hadn't given my full name, if I had I could have sued the station as I was called a bigot for simply not supporting SSM.
It was a text how people from all sides should be respected and that name calling for not supporting SSM was not right.
I was told, I was a bigot simply for not supporting it, one person said I should not vote.
I had serious issues over that - can't debate against SSM or one is a bigot, and then one shouldn't use their democratic right.
This is why I think Panti is wrong, some people are blind to people on the pro-SSM and how they are trying to silence debate.
I would never tell anyone not to vote even if they were voting for what I disagree with. It shows a lack of a good argument when namecalling and telling one not to vote is part of a debate.

Firstly, we have no idea what you said or what the text said in response, so how are to judge the rights or wrongs.

Secondly, even if you don't like her, Ivana Bacik is a qualified barrister. Both Ivana, and a number of other practicing barristers have stated that they don't think a defamation case would succeed.

So please just stop acting like it was clear cut.

Thirdly, tell me how the words homophobe or bigot have the power to silence anybody.

Last I checked, David Quinn, John Waters and Breda O'Brien all still had their columns in national newspapers, and two of the three had participated in radio/tv shows since.

It doesn't silence anybody. A homophobe still has a right of reply.

You'll find that us "liberals" tend to actually be quite big on free speech.

The silencing thing is BS. In the US, you are free to call anybody a homophobe if you wish, and right wingers are frequently called out as such. and yet they have an extremely vocal, well represented, rabidly anti-gay homophobic media presence.

joseph brand · 07-02-2014 12:36PM

No

efb wrote: »

Panti had other appointments BBC etc

He might follow in the footsteps of Graham Norton and leave this stifling island of religious bigots. RTE's penchant for nepotism, and programming which caters for invalids provides little opportunity.

Laugh or cry at these specimens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tle6fnztvA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZYQluJW-dM

As if Tubs wasn't cringe-worthy enough. I could picture the camera panning around to show the audience cutting their own ears off screaming "WHY?"

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 12:38PM

Arguing against marriage equality = arguing for the denial of civil rights to gay people = by any definition, homophobia

If you want to continue arguing against marriage equality - get used to being called a homophobe.

If you no longer wish to be/to be called a homophobe - revise your attitudes on marriage equality.

Ta-dah!

joseph brand · 07-02-2014 12:42PM

No

floggg wrote: »

Firstly, we have no idea what you said or what the text said in response, so how are to judge the rights or wrongs.

Secondly, even if you don't like her, Ivana Bacik is a qualified barrister. Both Ivana, and a number of other practicing barristers have stated that they don't think a defamation case would succeed.

So please just stop acting like it was clear cut.

Thirdly, tell me how the words homophobe or bigot have the power to silence anybody.

Last I checked, David Quinn, John Waters and Breda O'Brien all still had their columns in national newspapers, and two of the three had participated in radio/tv shows since.

It doesn't silence anybody. A homophobe still has a right of reply.

You'll find that us "liberals" tend to actually be quite big on free speech.

The silencing thing is BS. In the US, you are free to call anybody a homophobe if you wish, and right wingers are frequently called out as such. and yet they have an extremely vocal, well represented, rabidly anti-gay homophobic media presence.

FOX news Propaganda.

Rednecks fist-pumping and chanting "Liberty and Freedumb", while also demanding that the LGBT community NOT be treated equally. The irony is most often wasted on them. Not fans of reading or 'book lernin'.

Maximus Alexander · 07-02-2014 12:49PM

No

floggg wrote: »

The silencing thing is BS. In the US, you are free to call anybody a homophobe if you wish, and right wingers are frequently called out as such. and yet they have an extremely vocal, well represented, rabidly anti-gay homophobic media presence.

That's the key thing, the people you're talking about know they are homophobic and they're fine with that. Even though I deplore their attitudes, they at least have courage in their convictions.

Maybe it just tells us that Robert, Iona and their cohorts have some sense of shame at the very least. Otherwise they wouldn't be bothered by it when people call a spade a spade.

"I want gays to be treated as second class citizens, I think they are shit parents and they are intent on bringing about the fall of civilization, but I'm not a homophobe - oh no, please don't call me that, homophobes are awful people!"

Terry1985 · 07-02-2014 12:55PM

20Cent wrote: »

The anti ssm side are spending all their time complaining about name calling instead of putting their arguments against ssm. Is that because their arguments are so weak?

I think yes.

Yawn... Was that post worth posting for a couple of back slapping thanks?

The core problem with LBGT issues in general is that LBGT individuals basically have a mismatch of body/gender and mind.
They're heterosexually dysfunctional and expecting the rest of the world to pretend that their relationships are equal to the biologically correct straight ones.

Now it's sad that children get caught up in these situations and they have to be treated equally and given that same level of protection regardless of married/unmarried/gay/straight parents. Although I'd still remind people that currently unmarried heterosexual fathers have no automatic legal guardianship.
So I'm all for increasing the rights of all biological parents, unmarried or not, but that should be completely independent of the gay marriage issue.

Fundamentally as I've said before, marriage is the pair bonding of a couple and that is rooted deeply to heterosexuality.

So it's more of a case of 'LBGTs are not doing it right' so why should we pretend they are?

They're looking for the right to force society to pretend their behavior is biologically equal to heterosexuality, which it isn't.

Now... cue the usual LBGT drones posting a page full of links to 'studies'.

By the way, if you can't explain yourself concisely then don't bother.

Mod Note: User Banned

joseph brand · 07-02-2014 12:57PM

No

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Arguing against marriage equality = arguing for the denial of civil rights to gay people = by any definition, homophobia

If you want to continue arguing against marriage equality - get used to being called a homophobe.

If you no longer wish to be/to be called a homophobe - revise your attitudes on marriage equality.

Ta-dah!

"Just because I think blacks have smallerer brains, they're stealing our jobs and should be sent home on the boats they drove in on ,that does not make me a racist!" "Sure, didn't I watched Rocky and I liked the Apollo Creed in it so there."

If the above statement, typical of back-peddling racists, makes little sense, well that's normal. You'll read/ hear the same indecipherable babble from the Iona 'Institute' and their ilk.

How about this old chestnut:
"People think I'm racist, BUT, I have a friend/ colleague who is black/ brown."
"People think I'm homophobic, BUT, I have a gay friend/ family member/ colleague."

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 12:58PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

Yawn... Was that post worth posting for a couple of back slapping thanks?

The core problem with LBGT issues in general is that LBGT individuals basically have a mismatch of body/gender and mind.
They're heterosexually dysfunctional and expecting the rest of the world to pretend that their relationships are equal to the biologically correct straight ones.

Now it's sad that children get caught up in these situations and they have to be treated equally and given that same level of protection regardless of married/unmarried/gay/straight parents. Although I'd still remind people that currently unmarried heterosexual fathers have no automatic legal guardianship.
So I'm all for increasing the rights of all biological parents, unmarried or not, but that should be completely independent of the gay marriage issue.

Fundamentally as I've said before, marriage is the pair bonding of a couple and that is rooted deeply to heterosexuality.

So it's more of a case of 'LBGTs are not doing it right' so why should we pretend they are?

They're looking for the right to force society to pretend their behavior is biologically equal to heterosexuality, which it isn't.

Now... cue the usual LBGT drones posting a page full of links to 'studies'.

By the way, if you can't explain yourself concisely then don't bother.

Wow
Such explain
Much straight and correct
So superiority
Wow

floggg · 07-02-2014 12:59PM

No

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Arguing against marriage equality = arguing for the denial of civil rights to gay people = by any definition, homophobia

If you want to continue arguing against marriage equality - get used to being called a homophobe.

If you no longer wish to be/to be called a homophobe - revise your attitudes on marriage equality.

Ta-dah!

While I don't believe everybody on the no side is hateful, I have to conclude that arguments against marriage equality are, whether directly or indirectly, rooted in either religion or homophobic views (in the nuanced sense of the word espoused by Rory).

What I find funny is that people are happy to state loudly their believe that certain sections of the community are, or should be treated as, "less than" be get offended when people respond by calling them bigots.

You are arguing that another human should be denied equality and the most offensive thing about that conversation is the name you are called in response?

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 01:02PM

floggg wrote: »

While I don't believe everybody on the no side is hateful, I have to conclude that arguments against marriage equality are, whether directly or indirectly, rooted in either religion or homophobic views (in the nuanced sense of the word espoused by Rory).

What I find funny is that people are happy to state loudly their believe that certain sections of the community are, or should be treated as, "less than" be get offended when people respond by calling them bigots.

You are arguing that another human should be denied equality and the most offensive thing about that conversation is the name you are called in response?

Agreed - but they are homophobic, whether they like the term or not

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 01:05PM

Iona are not homophobic just because someone wants to defend marriage does not make them homophobic.

The liberal lefty vociferous self appointed elite are on the verge of equating any differing view as equating this as homophobia like racism.

Feminazi in Chief Una Mutually of the Irish Times even wanted a state appointed watch dog to shut down debate and hunt down anyone who said hey I think a marriage is between a man and a woman and needs to be protected - what a strange concept.

There are still over 400K people unemployed and many more struggling to survive but yet the media etc are obsessed and dedicating countless and unwarranted attention to the Pant/SSM debate.

I blame Labour and FGs capitulation to them for their social engineering tendencies and stoking up this diversion to cover the governments lack of action on jobs. Hopping on the gay hobby horse makes them look liberal progressive etc but just covers up their inaction.

If I was unemployed I would be fairly unimpressed that politicians are dedicating their time to this so much to most people is a non - issue and obsessing about being hell bent on dismantling marriage. Civil Partnership was more than sufficient. Homophobia is always wrong.

We need to get to get our priorities right. People can't put food on the table and the media/political bubble is obsessed with this crap?

Crazy stuff!

Delirium · 07-02-2014 01:05PM

No

Terry1985 wrote: »

Yawn... Was that post worth posting for a couple of back slapping thanks?

The core problem with LBGT issues in general is that LBGT individuals basically have a mismatch of body/gender and mind.

Only if subscribe to a narrow definition of "acceptable matches", in much the same why those who opposed inter-racial couples did.

They're heterosexually dysfunctional and expecting the rest of the world to pretend that their relationships are equal to the biologically correct straight ones.

First problem is you're supposed everyone is "supposed to be heterosexual". We don't discriminate against infertile (also "heterosexually dysfunctional") couples. Why should same-sex couples be discriminated against then?

Now it's sad that children get caught up in these situations and they have to be treated equally and given that same level of protection regardless of married/unmarried/gay/straight parents.

It's sad that children have to treated equally regardless of who are there legal guardians? :eek::eek:

Although I'd still remind people that currently unmarried heterosexual fathers have no automatic legal guardianship.

And this is relevant to same-sex marriage because....?

So I'm all for increasing the rights of all biological parents, unmarried or not, but that should be completely independent of the gay marriage issue.

And yet here you are injecting it into the conversation. But agreed it is a separate issue to marriage.

Fundamentally as I've said before, marriage is the pair bonding of a couple and that is rooted deeply to heterosexuality.

why? Same-sex couples also form long-term relationships.

So it's more of a case of 'LBGTs are not doing it right' so why should we pretend they are?

Only if "doing it right" is heterosexuality. there is nothing wrong with a LGBT person and it's ignorance to suggest otherwise.

They're looking for the right to force society to pretend their behavior is biologically equal to heterosexuality, which it isn't.

Wrong. They're looking for access to civil marriage in the same way as heterosexual couples.

Now... cue the usual LBGT drones posting a page full of links to 'studies'.

Poor reflection on yourself that you just dismiss them out of hand because you have issues with LGBT people.

By the way, if you can't explain yourself concisely then don't bother.

"I have the attention span of a goldfish" :P:pac:

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments