Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

1…8586889091…117

Comments

  • #2612
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Confused not at all. Gay people should be treated equal.

    Try explaining to a child where Adam and Steve next door got their baby from you will see what confused looks like then.

    If you are bringing up your child without instilling them with latent homophobia then they wouldn't and shouldn't bat an eyelid.


  • #2613
    dharma200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 998 ✭✭✭dharma200


    No
    There is no point arguing with these idiots. The only thing that is going to help is legislation, equality for all.
    Whoever cares what goes on in so done else's sex life, and uses that as a way of disregarding their right to family life, equality etc. is the very person our society needs protecting from, not the other way round..... Place is rife with homophobes, and the iona institute? Hopefully their spite fuelled right wing days are numbered...... No one is falling for the tripe they spout anymore, their legalese, their big bucks.... No one.......


  • #2614
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    They aren't though and that is why the gay bandwagon is getting a bit hysterical.
    Remember Norris was way over estimated in the polls same here I am afraid.

    The catholic church's own survey shows that marriage equality is either somewhat important or very important to 70% of people the catholic church surveyed

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0201/ireland/priests-say-church-out-of-touch-on-family-planning-257326.html

    and you still think it has no support? really?
    :pac:


  • #2615
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    They aren't though and that is why the gay bandwagon is getting a bit hysterical.
    Remember Norris was way over estimated in the polls same here I am afraid.

    Bring Mr Panti on a nation wide campaign tour away from fawning Abbey Theater goers the reaction will be quite different.

    We have a bandwagon now :eek:

    Do we have to park in in the gay lobby or have we a gay garage?


    BTW - do you get sponsored each time you use the word 'hysterical'?


  • #2616
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Hang on a second, so you're saying gay marriage doesn't affect the majority? Is that because it only affects gay people? Cool, so remind me why you object to it.

    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.


  • Advertisement
  • #2617
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    Okay you've said trendy left liberal, pc fascism and silent majority. Made some outrageous claims. I can only conclude that this is the language of a time travelling Richard Nixon. Hey Richard!

    There's also over 30 years of research into same sex parenting. They're as good at parenting as any other. So it's not a social experiment,I'm done with this wishy washy trendy liberal claptrap anyway......


  • #2618
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    ...a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships...

    Ah now. Why would you make up a lie like that?


  • #2619
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Zillah wrote: »
    In one sentence he calls his opponents hysterical, and then goes on to talk about government death squads.

    I am consistently amazed at how absolutely incoherent homophobes are. It would be expected that they be offensive, selfish or short-sighted...but the sheer consistency of how incoherent they are is amazing.

    "Homophobia is bad and gay marriage isn't a right and you have to be murdered to have your rights violated and HAVE YOU NOTICED THE ECONOMY IS BAD and gay marriage is less important than jobs and DEATH SQUADS and I hate RTE isn't IONA wonderful GAY AGENDA LIBERALS LEFTIES who wants some tea?"

    And then we try to reply as if it will achieve anything for anyone.

    Yeah you volunteer to do some polling at a few dole queues I am sure they will tell you where the governments should focus their energies.

    By the way noone has suggested why now in a deep recession when there was plenty of time during the Celtic Tiger?

    Honest question why now?


  • #2620
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    No
    "Away from the Abbey Theatre", I wonder who'd have their pint paid for them first, John Waters or Rory O Neill...

    I hope Iona spend their redundancy money well.


  • #2621
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    Ooh, I think I've got a line on my Conservative Crazy bingo card! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #2622
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Honest question why now?

    You mean next year?


  • #2623
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Sarky wrote: »
    Ah now. Why would you make up a lie like that?

    A baby cannot speak a vunerable homeless child has no voice.


  • #2624
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage
    How does it affect the general population?
    and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    The gay marriage referendum has precisely nothing to do with children.

    And children don't get a say either way, whether its heterosexual parents or homosexual.


  • #2625
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    Montjuic wrote: »
    lefty liberal media a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    In the vain hope of getting an answer this time:
    Friend Computer wrote: »
    Should children being adopted by heterosexual couples have a say? Why or why not and why should it be any different for homosexual couples?


  • #2626
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    A baby cannot speak a vunerable homeless child has no voice.

    You seem to think that there's a danger from same sex parents...... Why else would you say vulnerable? Can you expand?


  • #2627
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage

    I'm married,
    Allowing gay people to marry has zero affect on my marriage to my wife, it doesn't devalue it in anyway.

    Allowing gay marriage also has zero affect on catholic marriages because the catholic church won't allow gay marriages to take place in their church's.

    The only people that seem to fear marriage equality and think it redefines marriage for them also seem to be people that hold views of discrimination and/or hatred towards gay people.....funny that.


  • #2628
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    A baby cannot speak a vunerable homeless child has no voice.

    So you believe the best place for a child is with a man and a women who are married? yes?


  • #2629
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Daith wrote: »
    You mean next year?

    We are looking at a year and a half to two year full time debate or abusive non debate to a social ideological driven engineering experiment while the country goes down the tubes.

    Why should the government waste its time on this?


  • #2630
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    We are looking at a year and a half to two year full time debate or abusive non debate to a social ideological driven engineering experiment while the country goes down the tubes.

    Why should the government waste its time on this?

    Do you have any points to make outside of loaded language?


  • #2631
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    Hold up now, which is it? Because these are on completely different parts of the political spectrum. Not far off being exact opposites.

    You're just saying words you heard, aren't you?


  • Advertisement
  • #2632
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    A baby cannot speak a vunerable homeless child has no voice.

    Why would you lie about the lack of research on children raised by same sex parents? They turn out as well as any other child. I'm sure you wouldn't make a claim like you did without something to back it up though, so no doubt your next reply will be positively bursting at the seams with links to research...


  • #2633
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Cabaal wrote: »
    So you believe the best place for a child is with a man and a women who are married? yes?

    Ideally yes a man and a woman bring different things to a child growing up. As long as they are stable etc but of course the old I know a married couple who are drug addicts etc who I wouldn't let mind a dog is usually thrown back at this so I will save time by saying all things being equal a stable married couple would be preferable.


  • #2634
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Sarky wrote: »
    Why would you lie about the lack of research on children raised by same sex parents? They turn out as well as any other child. I'm sure you wouldn't make a claim like you did without something to back it up though, so no doubt your next reply will be positively bursting at the seams with links to research...

    Show me the research which says they do as well and a state sponsored push for gay adoption will be good for children? That's your move there.


  • #2635
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Ideally yes a man and a woman bring different things to a child growing up. As long as they are stable etc but of course the old I know a married couple who are drug addicts etc who I wouldn't let mind a dog is usually thrown back at this so I will save time by saying all things being equal a stable married couple would be preferable.

    Can you provide some research that prove women and men offer different to a child growing up? As all research seems to indicate loving parents alongside good parenting ability is what is needed.


  • #2636
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Show me the research which says they do as well and a state sponsored push for gay adoption will be good for children? That's your move there.

    Gay people can already adopt. Why don't you do some research?


  • #2637
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Show me the research which says they do as well and a state sponsored push for gay adoption will be good for children? That's your move there.

    There's a discussion about equal adoption here. This thread isn't about that. The more you post, the more confused you appear.


  • #2638
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    It gets unwarranted attention and support from a trendy lefty liberal media proportionate to the amount of people it directly effects i.e gays who want the "right" to get married but effects the general population by redefining marriage and introduces a social experiment untried and untested of placing children with no say with gay partnerships where the way the PC facisim is going will probably get first choice on children lest we offend.

    The only thing that gets unwarranted attention in the media is the minority sport of rugby.


    Anyway, you're spouting an awful lot of sh!te here.

    I don't think that your homophobic rants are winning any friends in this thread.

    Plenty of countries are voting for same sex marriages - it's just backward bigoted attitudes like yours that are holding us back.

    You will get your answer big time at the ballot box.
    You, Iona and your RCC masters will get another unmerciful beating.

    The country will carry on, divorce, contraception, abortion.
    You can't stop the tide.
    Let people live their lives as they see fit.
    You should not have the right to tell anyone that their lifestyle is wrong.

    I will vote on referendum day for equality and to send your ilk a message that we won't back down to your bullying any longer.

    Make sure to bring a flahlight with you, when you go home to the dark ages!


  • #2639
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Why should the government waste its time on this?

    The economy isn't an engine into which politicians shovel coal in rotating shifts. The economy is not suffering for want of politicians spending more time working on it. It has to take time to recover. It's like wondering where the hell the doctor has gone after he's put your leg in a cast; he can't force it to heal faster by standing around staring at it.

    I do, however, get the impression, that this issue is not really at the heart of your opposition to gay marriage.


  • #2640
    Montjuic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭Montjuic


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Hold up now, which is it? Because these are on completely different parts of the political spectrum. Not far off being exact opposites.

    You're just saying words you heard, aren't you?

    Oh I have heard them your right there I have a Phd in politics.

    Lefty liberal ideology with facist type tactics by the gay brigade the two are not mutually exclusive.


  • Advertisement
  • #2641
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    No
    Montjuic wrote: »
    Show me the research which says they do as well and a state sponsored push for gay adoption will be good for children? That's your move there.
    There you go,that is a meta analysis which goes over the best existing research and concludes that same sex couples are as good parents as heterosexual ones.

    http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Crowl%20Ahn%20%20Baker%202008%20Same%20Sex%20Parenting%20Meta%20Analysis.pdf


Advertisement