Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

B0jangles · 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.
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.

Concise?

OK.

You are wrong about everything.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:05PM

No

Links234 wrote: »

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

Colm O'Gorman for TV appearances.

You, me and every other gay person for our friends, families and neighbours.

lazygal · 07-02-2014 01:07PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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!

That's a heck of a lot of conspiracy for one post.

Daith · 07-02-2014 01:09PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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

Defend marriage? From who? Why does marriage need defending?

Also Iona were against civil partnership too not just marriage. They've had a history of campaigning against LGBT rights.

Maximus Alexander · 07-02-2014 01:10PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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

It's amazing how almost every pro Iona supporter brings out this term, or some variation thereof, as if it were a slur. And as if anyone who likes equality does so because of some political alignment that they have been born or indoctrinated into.

I have no idea if I'm 'liberal' or a 'lefty' - I just don't like people being treated like shit for the lolz. Does that make me one?

Is this your version of 'homophobe'? Am I meant to be offended? What are you then, a 'conservative righty'?

20Cent · 07-02-2014 01:16PM

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.
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.

This is why anti ssm bang on abiut being called names. When they do open their mouths to explain why their agaist it there is so much ignorance don't even know where to start with it.

TwoShedsJackson · 07-02-2014 01:17PM

No

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's amazing how almost every pro Iona supporter brings out this term, or some variation thereof, as if it were a slur. And as if anyone who likes equality does so because of some political alignment that they have been born or indoctrinated into.

I have no idea if I'm 'liberal' or a 'lefty' - I just don't like people being treated like shit for the lolz. Does that make me one?

Is this your version of 'homophobe'? Am I meant to be offended? What are you then, a 'conservative righty'?

It's a nice easy way for someone who hasn't got a rational argument to lump everyone who doesn't think like they do into a nice convenient group, so they can attempt to insult them all at once.

Delirium · 07-02-2014 01:17PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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

Iona are homophobic because their members have openly stated that homosexuals should be treated as second class citizens for the common good.

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

Explain why homophobia and racism shouldn't be viewed the same in that they are both discrimination, aversion or haterd towards a group?

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.

Can you provide a link to that as all I can find is that she said that people shouldn't be allowed to call LGBT people inferior (be it as a couple, parents etc.)?

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.

That's not an argument for condoing discrimination.

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.

Yeah, it couldn't be that people are figuring out that maybe it's time to try and treat all citizens equally.

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.

No one is dismantling marriage. Civil partnership doesn't confer the same rights on same-sex couples as marriage does for heterosexual couples.

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!

Governments multi-task. They're not only working on this

B0jangles · 07-02-2014 01:23PM

No

John Waters is a homophone.

There, I said it.

:pac:

edit: I'm sorry, I'm sorry but everytime someone makes that mistake I start giggling because it is so unintentionally true.

humanji · 07-02-2014 01:25PM

Needless to say, Terry1985 won't be joining us again.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:35PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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!

The simple way to show opposition isn't homophobic is to point out a reasoned, logical non-religious and evidence based argument against marriage equality.

I look forward to that one.

And if I was unemployed and gay, I'd feel more aggrieved that my government didn't see me as equal than not having a job.

Thankfully, the government can focus on more than one issue at a time though.

RobertKK - oh look, name calling!

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 01:39PM

floggg wrote: »

The simple way to show opposition isn't homophobic is to point out a reasoned, logical non-religious and evidence based argument against marriage equality.

I look forward to that one.

And if I was unemployed and gay, I'd feel more aggrieved that my government didn't see me as equal than not having a job.

Thankfully, the government can focus on more than one issue at a time though.

RobertKK - oh look, name calling!

Interesting!

Zubeneschamali · 07-02-2014 01:46PM

No

floggg wrote: »

The simple way to show opposition isn't homophobic is to point out a reasoned, logical non-religious and evidence based argument against marriage equality.

What I'd like is for them to drop the "non-religious" smokescreen. We all know that there are really only three reasons behind the opposition to SSM:

a) I'm a Catholic, and I think Catholicism should be the law.
b) Thinking about bum sex makes me uncomfortable.
c) I'm Paddy Manning

Most opponents are mainly a) with a bit of b).

If they'd just come right out and state that their main reason is a), we could actually debate a), their real objection.

But a) has taken quite a kicking over the last few decades, and looks set to get some more from the Constitutional Convention, and it sounds kind of old-fashioned, so they prefer not to say it outright.

b) is obviously true of some people, I've even heard "I'm an atheist but..." style b) arguments from people who should know better, but it's not a respectable argument you can make in the public arena.

The less said about c) the better.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:48PM

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.
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

Do you know, I respect people more when they just come out and say what they think about me rather than pretending it's all love.

floggg · 07-02-2014 01:56PM

No

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What I'd like is for them to drop the "non-religious" smokescreen. We all know that there are really only three reasons behind the opposition to SSM:

a) I'm a Catholic, and I think Catholicism should be the law.
b) Thinking about bum sex makes me uncomfortable.
c) I'm Paddy Manning

Most opponents are mainly a) with a bit of b).

If they'd just come right out and state that their main reason is a), we could actually debate a), their real objection.

But a) has taken quite a kicking over the last few decades, and looks set to get some more from the Constitutional Convention, and it sounds kind of old-fashioned, so they prefer not to say it outright.

b) is obviously true of some people, I've even heard "I'm an atheist but..." style b) arguments from people who should know better, but it's not a respectable argument you can make in the public arena.

The less said about c) the better.

Maybe the yes campaign should feature posters of hot lesbians getting it on.

The anti-bum sex people rarely take issue to that.

J_E · 07-02-2014 02:00PM

No

If more people just came out and said 'Actually it's because I think gay people are unnatural' we'd avoid a lot of roundabout arguments.

Calling a spade a spade...

Zillah · 07-02-2014 02:00PM

No

I kind of feel like vomiting every time I hear someone that opposes marriage equality saying that they want to "defend" marriage. Something needs to be under attack to be defended - straight marriages will go on as they always have with or without same sex marriage. It's a nasty, disingenuous attempt to make people feel like they're under attack.

On another note: I think banning Terry1985 is a completely excessive knee-jerk reaction. Most people have said "Iona can say what they want and we can call them homophobes for it". Now we're banning anyone that says something mean about gays? Weird debating strategy. Also kind of robs us of the higher moral ground on the whole free-speech thing. Or did he say much worse things that got snipped?

eyescreamcone · 07-02-2014 02:01PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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 from Iona AGAIN!

FYP

J_E · 07-02-2014 02:17PM

No

The problem is, for the people it doesn't affect, they don't see the fuss (or pretend it does). For the people it does, they realise how important a step it is towards equality. Hence a lot of conflict of opinion.

The thing to remember is, there are already gay and lesbian families in Ireland. We're simply giving their children the rights and legal protection they deserve, along with their parents. If some posters here are so concerned about the children, they might take that into account? It's not dramatically changing people's lives, simply covering a large gap in the law.

darced · 07-02-2014 02:19PM

This post has been deleted.

J_E · 07-02-2014 02:21PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've been in this discussion in and out since the start

The arguments against wouldn't be contested so critically if they had a substantial enough base anyway. Sadly, there is more often than not an undercurrent of 'I don't think your relationship matches up to mine'.

Links234 · 07-02-2014 02:28PM

No

Zillah wrote: »

On another note: I think banning Terry1985 is a completely excessive knee-jerk reaction. Most people have said "Iona can say what they want and we can call them homophobes for it". Now we're banning anyone that says something mean about gays? Weird debating strategy. Also kind of robs us of the higher moral ground on the whole free-speech thing. Or did he say much worse things that got snipped?

Actually, I do agree with you, I don't think anyone is under any pretentions that people like Terry are merely hiding their inherent bigotry behind some creative language, continues to duck and weave around every point put to them, and just won't state what exactly they're for/against. All that big dance does is frustrate everyone by dragging things out to absurdity while we try to 'pin the tail on the donkey' to get to an actual argument, only for them to be banned for stating it. It's not a good precedent to set for other posters either, who feel they have to keep up a song and dance and stick to nebulous nonsense about 'defending' marriage, and never stating their actual point of view for fear of banning. It would save everyone's teeth from grinding if people like Terry would just make their argument from the get go and it can be debated.

That said, this is just my own interpretation, and he could've said/done something worse that we aren't privvy to. It's probably bordering on backseat modding, so I won't go on any further than that.

J_E · 07-02-2014 02:35PM

No

floggg wrote: »

Maybe the yes campaign should feature posters of hot lesbians getting it on.

The anti-bum sex people rarely take issue to that.

Yeah, it's rather telling that people (men mostly) seem to take a lot less offense to lesbians, even going so far to view them as 'bonus points', which is quite jarring to them and us.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 02:39PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

If more people just came out and said 'Actually it's because I think gay people are unnatural' we'd avoid a lot of roundabout arguments.

Calling a spade a spade...

But that is how one is born so it is not unnatural, it doesn't mean one has to support SSM.

aidan24326 · 07-02-2014 02:42PM

No

The arguments against same-sex-marriage coming from IONA and their supporters are so old and tedious and uninteresting and plain wrong and yet they keep on and on and on, like if you say something often enough people will eventually believe it (which is probably true to an extent).

It would be nice if one of the anti-ssm brigade could come up with an argument that didn't boil down to the same old nonsense repeated over and over.

lazygal · 07-02-2014 02:45PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

But that is how one is born so it is not unnatural, it doesn't mean one has to support SSM.

Why don't you support same sex marriage?

J_E · 07-02-2014 02:49PM

No

aidan24326 wrote: »

It would be nice if one of the anti-ssm brigade could come up with an argument that didn't boil down to the same old nonsense repeated over and over.

I think we'd all welcome a fresh and plausible argument that hasn't been debunked over, and over, and over...

Daith · 07-02-2014 02:50PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about opposing Civil Partnership which Iona did. What about opposing decriminalization of homosexual activity like Susan Philips did?

It's not just about "opposing marriage". Iona have been opposed to equal rights for gay people long before marriage came into the picture.

aidan24326 · 07-02-2014 02:58PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But it IS natural. It's widespread throughout the animal kingdom, and prevalent in human society going back thousands of years, how much more 'natural' do you want?

It may seem a bit peculiar from an evolutionary perspective but unnatural it isn't.

Cydoniac wrote: »

I think we'd all welcome a fresh and plausible argument that hasn't been debunked over, and over, and over...

That's the thing, the arguments put forward by the likes of IONA have been thoroughly debunked and yet back they come for more like a broken record. A broken record that keeps playing a really terrible song but is stuck on permanent play and only a hatchet to the power line will make it stop.

J_E · 07-02-2014 03:00PM

No

Daith wrote: »

What about opposing Civil Partnership which Iona did. What about opposing decriminalization of homosexual activity like Susan Philips did?

It's not just about "opposing marriage". Iona have been opposed to equal rights for gay people long before marriage came into the picture.

Exactly, people forget this goes way beyond marriage for that crowd. They claim they were okay with Civil Partnership when they blatantly weren't. They claim they were okay with decriminalisation before Civil Partnership before that, but they blatantly weren't. There's a deeper rooted thing going on.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments