Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

P_1 · 07-02-2014 04:18PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

What?

I don't know why teachers have to be open about their sexuality at school or in the workplace when it has nothing to do with their work.

It is like the whole St patrick's day parade fuss in the US as if sexuality was part of the parade, when the day has nothing to do with sexuality.

Yes we get, one is homosexual, one would think it was a disease given how some feel the need to talk about being homosexual as if there was something wrong with them.
Then talk about a harder life but choose to bring it on themselves when they could easily avoid it.

Schools can employ who they want in accordance with their ethos, may not like it but that is how it is.

Yes teachers don't need to be open about their sexuality at work (be that gay, straight or bi) but they have the right to be open about it outside work. I presume that Iona somehow feel that how somebody acts outside outside work somehow defines how they act in work.

Daith · 07-02-2014 04:20PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know why teachers have to be open about their sexuality at school or in the workplace when it has nothing to do with their work.
.

I'm assuming this goes for all teachers? So a straight teacher getting married should keep that quiet because their sexuality has nothing to do with work?

timetogo · 07-02-2014 04:20PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Another thing is I don't support civil marriage. To me marriage I would not count myself married if it was a registry office job. I would need a church wedding - personal.

So a marriage can only be a religious thing? How would an atheist get married? Or is that not an option?
The state gives certain rights to married people at the moment. I suppose if those rights could be given without marriage then that would work OK. Maybe that's the problem. I'm not religious. I don't really care about marriage. If I could have signed a document giving my current wife the rights she gets as my wife I wouldn't be too bothered about the marriage ceremony.
I did get married in a registry office, in Armagh. There were 20 people at it. I thought it was way more personal than many church weddings I've been to.

Stark · 07-02-2014 04:22PM

No

RobertKK wrote:

I don't know why teachers have to be open about their sexuality at school or in the workplace when it has nothing to do with their work.

I have to listen to people going on about wives and kids all the time in work. Should I tell them to stop being open about their heterosexuality when it has nothing to do with their work?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:24PM

road_high wrote: »

Really? Care to list all these and give examples?
By the way, delighted to hear that they do, it's only right and proper.

Derek Mooney, just listen to his program - gets paid license fee money and uses it promote his opinions.

RTE is very liberal in general, it is why they were blind to Panti that night which got them into trouble.
It is why they had shoddy investigative journalism which allowed an innocent man to be accused and judged on TV.
I am throwing this in for a bit of fun - remember when they tried to get rid of the Angelus and had to back down over protests from license fee payers.
There was the fake tweet to de-rail the presidential election which won it for their man Michael D.

If RTE were more stringent they would have avoided all of these. They allow their left wing social views cloud their judgements.

ebbsy · 07-02-2014 04:24PM

It would be great if this vote was held tomorrow, there is going to be another year of the gay discussion being rammed down our throats, be it on TV (hehe), newspapers or radio.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:25PM

Stark wrote: »

I have to listen to people going on about wives and kids all the time in work. Should I tell them to stop being open about their heterosexuality when it has nothing to do with their work?

Yes you should, though they mightn't like you for it, nothing more boring.

Links234 · 07-02-2014 04:26PM

No

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

He didn't duck and weave in the post he was banned for. He stated his view on the subject clear enough without any abuse or name calling. He was banned for having that view and expressing it. So I wouldn't be too critical of others for being wary about expressing their opinion on here. You and others are free to call him and other ssm opponents bigots and worse. Many here see no problem with that. 'Call a spade a spade' is the usual arguement. However, don't expect a two sided debate on here. It will not be allowed to happen.

Seeing as I've already lamented Terry's banning, I won't comment on that.

But it is a particularly absurd state of affairs where one side of the debate can call LGBT people disfunctional, disordered, a danger to society, a threat to Ireland's culture, that we revel in destruction of said society and culture, that we are a danger to children, will abuse them, etc, and that we are unnatural, disgusting, that our relationships are parodies... One side of the debate gets to say this not only with impunity, but they have platforms regularly given to them by our national broadcaster and papers.

But to say that this is bigotted? Whoah, that's where the lines been crossed!

Absurd. Well and truly absurd.

Nodin · 07-02-2014 04:26PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Derek Mooney, just listen to his program - gets paid license fee money and uses it promote his opinions.

RTE is very liberal in general, it is why they were blind to Panti that night which got them into trouble.
It is why they had shoddy investigative journalism which allowed an innocent man to be accused and judged on TV.
I am throwing this in for a bit of fun - remember when they tried to get rid of the Angelus and had to back down over protests from license fee payers.
There was the fake tweet to de-rail the presidential election which won it for their man Michael D.

If RTE were more stringent they would have avoided all of these. They allow their left wing social views cloud their judgements.

Who was that?

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 04:27PM

No

Robert, David Quinn has been on RTE over a dozen times in past twelve months. Then there's the rest of Iona who appear regularly, RTE are clearly rubbish at this liberal agenda

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 04:29PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I know people think Paddy Manning is crazy

I don't think he's crazy, I see him as a fool.

Really Paddy is no different to the women that campaigned against women being given the right to vote, lets not forget that many women and men campaigned against this including Catholic Bishops and Priests.

When it comes to women these were short sighted women who were so beaten down by backwards views in society that they couldn't see that they were entitled to the right to vote and the right to be treated equal to men.

Paddy is no different to these women, a few years from now people will look at him and call him a complete fool. The history books won't be kind to people like Paddy, Iona and Waters,

I don't believe it is the state's role to define marriage.

Its not the catholic church's either, nor is it Iona's/

Marriage has existed long before the creation of the christian faith, you;ve only to look at the history of our species. Gay relationships have also existed far longer then the christian faith,

Who's job is it to define marriage you might ask?

Society as a whole get to define it, so if the people of this country want marriage to be between same sex couples then thats just hard luck to the fools that want to define it within their narrow minded views....views that are only defined by their faith (in the majority of cases)

btw, I say all of the above as a man who is not gay and is married.
I like many others in this country merely want my fellow humans to have the same rights as me when it comes to marriage regardless of their sexuality, its not alot to ask.

seenitall · 07-02-2014 04:33PM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

See, there's my issue. It's okay to have your stance on marriage equality from a religious perspective. It's not okay to make a decision for everyone else based on that belief. No straight couple has had to ask permission from the country to get civil married, so why do it for gay people?

Of course it's not ok, it is awful and oppressive, but realistically, that is how religion works and what it does. That's the business it's in. It brainwashes and it preaches on morality, on right and wrong, and as it was decided aeons ago that homosexuality is most definitely wrong (sinful), the faithful have a duty to their church and their God to uphold this and fight sinfulness wherever they see it. A duty to try and convert the sinners, and make everyone around them follow the godly path.

Evangelising, "the Good News", etc.

I actually remember that bit fairly well from my cathecism. You were supposed to be a proud Catholic, bear witness to God, and generally make an awful bore and a nuisance of yourself in your surroundings by preaching at all around you, effectively. (I never took it seriously, needless to say, but I saw the whole thing repeated with my younger cousin later, when she did take to delivering impromptu religious utterings and prayers in her pre-teens). Key word: brainwashing.

As already pointed out, the II are too clever to go anywhere near that heap of stench explicitly, but that is what is at the core of their attitude, and that zeal is the thing that is driving them.

humanji · 07-02-2014 04:34PM

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?

We're not banning anyone who says something mean about gays. We're banning people with a history of continuously trolling threads and re-reging to get around bans.

And as always, stick to the topic.

road_high · 07-02-2014 04:35PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Derek Mooney, just listen to his program - gets paid license fee money and uses it promote his opinions.

RTE is very liberal in general, it is why they were blind to Panti that night which got them into trouble.
It is why they had shoddy investigative journalism which allowed an innocent man to be accused and judged on TV.
I am throwing this in for a bit of fun - remember when they tried to get rid of the Angelus and had to back down over protests from license fee payers.
There was the fake tweet to de-rail the presidential election which won it for their man Michael D.

If RTE were more stringent they would have avoided all of these. They allow their left wing social views cloud their judgements.

Derek Mooney, the ones who presents the radio show about nature, butterflies and such things? Proper hard-core alright ain't he?

The Angelus will go eventually too, despite the massive protests you like to think will occur WHEN this happens...no way it can still exist going into the future in a multi-cultural secular society. But that's another (slightly irrelevant) issue. Only reason it stays is because no-body cares enough just now to ditch it. If and when RTE are privatised it will be gone, obviously. But I'm sure you can buy on CD or download for your listening pleasure.

darced · 07-02-2014 04:35PM

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:36PM

timetogo wrote: »

So a marriage can only be a religious thing? How would an atheist get married? Or is that not an option?
The state gives certain rights to married people at the moment. I suppose if those rights could be given without marriage then that would work OK. Maybe that's the problem. I'm not religious. I don't really care about marriage. If I could have signed a document giving my current wife the rights she gets as my wife I wouldn't be too bothered about the marriage ceremony.
I did get married in a registry office, in Armagh. There were 20 people at it. I thought it was way more personal than many church weddings I've been to.

I did not say that, to partly quote is to ignore where I mentioned non religious services too so all are catered for.
The state is getting a free ride in it's role in marriage and how it somehow has the right to define for all what marriage is.
We all live under the state, we don't need it in every facet of life, I am for less state, not more of it.

Abolish civil marriage and then the whole argument on marriage is over, people can marry who they want and we won't have the state defining what marriage is and no divisive debates.
If that was done SSM would be legal but marriage could have a very liberal or conservative meaning depending on the person.
All we get from the state is stuff to divide the people, which does take attention away from other things.

Daith · 07-02-2014 04:36PM

No

ebbsy wrote: »

It would be great if this vote was held tomorrow, there is going to be another year of the gay discussion being rammed down our throats, be it on TV (hehe), newspapers or radio.

To be honest this is nothing. We still have the debate on the new family bill that will allow same sex couples to adopt jointly. Then the referendum next year.

This is going to be a nasty year.

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 04:38PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

What?

I don't know why teachers have to be open about their sexuality at school or in the workplace when it has nothing to do with their work.

So you think its perfectly fine for a gay or lesbian teacher to have to entirely lie about their life?

So while other teachers discuss their boyfriends/girlfriends, engagements and weddings in the staff room (like most normal workplaces), you are happy to reassign a gay/lesbian teacher to lie for their entire working life?

That doesn't set a very good moral example now does it? Hey kids, its ok to lie to avoid being fired even though being gay isn't illegal in Ireland.

Schools can employ who they want in accordance with their ethos, may not like it but that is how it is.

and if tomorrow their ethos states that they didn't want black people working for them, would you be ok for them to be allowed to fire black people just for being black?

After all somebody thats gay is born this way, they can't change it no more then a black person can change being black.

Stop making excuses for backwards pig ignorant ethos

Daith · 07-02-2014 04:39PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I gave my opinion. Other people have different opinions. I pointed out that Iona were against Civil Partnership. Which you ignored. Again.

The fact that the Iona crowd are Catholic does not not make them immune to being called homophobes.

I'm not watering down homophobia or racisim. You honestly believe that someone isn't a racist until they beat up someone? You will not accept someone else's view on homophobia so why should we accept yours?

eyescreamcone · 07-02-2014 04:39PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No

You are wrong.

If you are against same sex marriage, YOU ARE homophobic.

All sorted now!!!

Sarky · 07-02-2014 04:40PM

No

Unless you've got a good reason to oppose marriage equality (so far, we've seen nothing like a good reason, just hysteria, misrepresented science and religious/societal prejudice disguised as 'think of the children'-style distractions), then yes, it's homophobic.

Deal with it.

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:41PM

Daith wrote: »

To be honest this is nothing. We still have the debate on the new family bill that will allow same sex couples to adopt jointly. Then the referendum next year.

This is going to be a nasty year.

It is why my proposal is better - a referendum to abolish civil marriage and let individuals decide what marriage is rather than the state.

timetogo · 07-02-2014 04:42PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not say that, to partly quote is to ignore where I mentioned non religious services too so all are catered for.

There's your full quote below. What I get from that is a marriage involves a man and a woman and a church.
And you don't like civil partnerships.
I don't see the bit where you mention non religious services, except to abolish registry offices. I'm sorry if I'm reading that wrong, but I've read it a couple of times.

RobertKK wrote: »

I know people think Paddy Manning is crazy - I don't but I have always viewed marriage as between a man and a woman.
Growing up it was always between a man and a woman, then I am told by some I must change my opinion because it is discriminating, but I never saw it as something that discriminated against anyone.
It was re-defined by some to make it appear discriminatory.

I don't go about hating anyone yet I was called a bigot, if against SSM you are a homophobe and so on. It doesn't convince me to change what I believe.

Another thing is I don't support civil marriage. To me marriage I would not count myself married if it was a registry office job. I would need a church wedding - personal.
That said about the redefinition of marriage and the above - we wouldn't need a referendum if civil marriage was abolished and people could just declare themselves married - heterosexual or homosexual whether in a religious or non religious service, and for any rights one could just go to their solictors and sign a form.
Rather than more civil marriage, I wish the referendum was to abolish all civil marriage.
I don't believe it is the state's role to define marriage.

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 04:44PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But Catholics in Ireland don't see marriage equality as a bad thing,

70% of those surveyed by the catholic church in Ireland recently see marriage equality as either somehow important or very important to them, 70%!

Iona are not in-line with the majority of Catholics of Ireland

Don't believe me?
Read the survey findings yourself
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0201/ireland/priests-say-church-out-of-touch-on-family-planning-257326.html

Daith · 07-02-2014 04:46PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It is why my proposal is better - a referendum to abolish civil marriage and let individuals decide what marriage is rather than the state.

As opposed to next years referendum when individuals get to decide what marriage is?

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 04:46PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

It is why my proposal is better - a referendum to abolish civil marriage and let individuals decide what marriage is rather than the state.

How about this,
Lets the people of Ireland decide if same sex marriage should happen,

and in the mean time the Irish Government can strip the catholic church of their charity status in Ireland,

Sound good?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:47PM

Cabaal wrote: »

So you think its perfectly fine for a gay or lesbian teacher to have to entirely lie about their life?

So while other teachers discuss their boyfriends/girlfriends, engagements and weddings in the staff room (like most normal workplaces), you are happy to reassign a gay/lesbian teacher to lie for their entire working life?

That doesn't set a very good moral example now does it? Hey kids, its ok to lie to avoid being fired even though being gay isn't illegal in Ireland.

and if tomorrow their ethos states that they didn't want black people working for them, would you be ok for them to be allowed to fire black people just for being black?

After all somebody thats gay is born this way, they can't change it no more then a black person can change being black.

Stop making excuses for backwards pig ignorant ethos

Is a teacher required to advertise they are either heterosexual or homosexual for one of these schools?
Are there any schools that prevent black teachers in Ireland or have we to make up things for the sake of an argument?

Fact is there is no pig(ment) ignorant school...

Daith · 07-02-2014 04:50PM

No

RobertKK wrote: »

Is a teacher required to advertise they are either heterosexual or homosexual for one of these schools?

No of course not. The teacher is picked by the school through an interview process and is brought on based on the school believing they are the best person for that job.

If the teacher "comes out" as hetrosexual ("myself and the girlfriend headed to the cinema") nothing will happen.

If the teacher "comes out" as homosexual they can be fired based on their sexuality.

Seems fair yes?

RobertKK · 07-02-2014 04:51PM

Cabaal wrote: »

How about this,
Lets the people of Ireland decide if same sex marriage should happen,

and in the mean time the Irish Government can strip the catholic church of their charity status in Ireland,

Sound good?

Only if you think the St Vincent de paul should tax on it's donations to help the poor.
The Franciscans in Dublin who provide food, clothes, a shower to those who need it should pay tax on the good donated to them that they hand out.
If you think money raised in church for disasters like in the Philippines, tsunamis. earthquakes, Syria should be taxed.
If you think aid organisations like trocaire which is a Catholic charity should have money to donated to help the poor of the world should be taxed.

Maybe you don't care about the poor and needy?

Piliger · 07-02-2014 04:51PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you are against gay marriage, you are homophobic. It's that simple.

The Iona Institute are a catholic organisation with catholic belief's their stance is standard and nothing to do with hate in my opinion.

In my opinion hate is at the core of their religion.

Watering down homophobia and racism doesnt help anyone's cause.

I agree.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments