Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 06:19PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

State run orphanages should not and never should have existed. The gay couple shouldn't be an option. The only option unmarried man woman married man woman single man single woman no problem. Just because gay couples currently lie about their domestic situation to adopt children does not mean it should be a right.

Single mothers with live in boyfriends are berated for such lies to the state system but not gay couples who lie in a similar fashion with greater consequences to children and the social order than a few Euro extra on a benefit payment.

You don't have to lie about your domestic situation. Just only one parent is recognised. Still reading over the research?

The Black Oil · 07-02-2014 06:20PM

'Why is the government wasting time on this?'

Hilarious. We heard the same response in the UK a few months ago. And this sentiment isn't in any way an attempt to, as certain people often claim, silence debate. No, of course not. Only liberals do that.

Montjuic wrote: »

Most of the above effect the majority of the population in some way. Apart from abortion issue this is the biggest social engineering experiment that Ireland has ever embarked on and is being driven by a liberal lefty elite and the ones who are making most of the noise is a hysterical gay lobby.

The silent majority will have there say democratically at the ballot box you will get the answer there.

I mean, there's no Catholic elite media lobby in Ireland at all, right?

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 06:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really.

May I ask what fine educational institution you attended? I may know your supervisor...or your extern.

I would also like to read your thesis - what university library should I contact?

You will never be able to know and I don't have to prove it so....come on is that the best you have about this social experiment?

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 06:22PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

State run orphanages should not and never should have existed. The gay couple shouldn't be an option. The only option unmarried man woman married man woman single man single woman no problem.

Hang on,

You stated

A child with their mother is always better off

You also stated

a man and a woman bring different things to a child growing up

Now you're ok with a single man adopting a child?

This goes against what you said about a mother raising a child, surely by your own logic a child should only ever be put with either a married man and women or a single mother,

Of course that itself brings its own issues because by your same argument the mother can't bring things to the child that the man would.

Its either a man and women or nobody by your own logic, anything else will not provide the best situation for the child.

It also means if you're happy for a single women or man to adopt then there is zero difference in a gay couple adopting.

If anything a gay couple would be more likely financially better off and as such better able to provide for the child then any single man or women would be able to, this in turn would provide a better standard of living for the child.

Knasher · 07-02-2014 06:22PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

State run orphanages should not and never should have existed.

So what is your alternative, entrust the children to the churches or just pretend that we live in some magical fantasy world where parents don't die or mistreat their children, who then need to be taken into care?

Montjuic wrote: »

Just because gay couples currently lie about their domestic situation to adopt children does not mean it should be a right.

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 06:23PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

'Why is the government wasting time on this?'

Hilarious. We heard the same response in the UK a few months ago. And this sentiment isn't in any way an attempt to, as certain people often claim, silence debate. No, of course not. Only liberals do that.

I mean, there's no Catholic elite media lobby in Ireland at all, right?

Course there is. The pendulum has swung the other way though too hard left though now if you disagree you are a Taliban type homophobe which is just not fair.

This is a natural and fair reaction to church scandals. Doesn't mean SSM should not be debated though does it?

Skylinehead · 07-02-2014 06:23PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

You will never be able to know and I don't have to prove it so....come on is that the best you have about this social experiment?

If you're not going to back it up, don't bother claiming it at all.

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 06:25PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Hang on,

You stated

You also stated

Now you're ok with a single man adopting a child?

This goes against what you said about a mother raising a child, surely by your own logic a child should only ever be put with either a married man and women or a single mother,

Of course that itself brings its own issues because by your same argument the mother can't bring things to the child that the man would.

Its either a man and women or nobody by your own logic, anything else will not provide the best situation for the child.

It also means if you're happy for a single women or man to adopt then there is zero difference in a gay couple adopting.

If anything a gay couple would be more likely financially better off and as such better able to provide for the child then any single man or women would be able to, this in turn would provide a better standard of living for the child.

Read it again friend. I gave a list of options. Gay adoption should not be an option. There are preferable alternatives on a sliding scale all things being equal on their various merits.

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 06:26PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

If you're not going to back it up, don't bother claiming it at all.

Didn't claim was asked big difference!

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 06:27PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Read it again friend. I gave a list of options. Gay adoption should not be an option. There are preferable alternatives on a sliding scale all things being equal on their various merits.

You already promised to Sarky that you'd provide evidence for your claims as soon as you were provided with evidence that same sex parents are equally as good. That has been done but you seem to have ignored that post altogether and have yet to provide evidence. Weird!

Montjuic · 07-02-2014 06:28PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

You already promised to Sarky that you'd provide evidence for your claims as soon as you were provided with evidence that same sex parents are equally as good. That has been done but you seem to have ignored that post altogether and have yet to provide evidence. Weird!

What evidence I saw no credible academic link posted?

darced · 07-02-2014 06:30PM

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 06:31PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Read it again friend. I gave a list of options. Gay adoption should not be an option. There are preferable alternatives on a sliding scale all things being equal on their various merits.

Your list of alternatives are inferior and flawed, they don't provide the child with the best chance at life and a good living standard.

You choose to ignore a perfectly comparable option which is equal to a married man and women when it comes to living standard, family unit etc at the expense of the child.

Its seriously worrying that you'd allow your religious or personal views to impact a child in this manner and instead you'd prefer the child to remain with abusive parents etc...after all you don't want any orphanages so the child will have to remain in a bad situation while they wait for an available adoption.

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 06:31PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

What evidence I saw no credible academic link posted?

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

It has been peer reviewed btw.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15504280802177615#.UvUX4h9O038

There has been many more studies since btw.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 06:32PM

No

Sarky wrote: »

A friend's PhD has the following line in the dedication section:

True story.

Anyway, how about that homophobia, eh? Pretty awful way to treat your fellow human beings.

There is one nestling in UCC's library that thanks me for being bloody minded about definitions of Post-Modernism and proofreading.

I think the answer to the second part goes something like

'homophobia is bad m'kay but only if death squads and the wheels are coming off the gay bandwagon but only manly straight men can teach children to change tires and what about the unemployed being forced to sell their babies in the gay lobby.'

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 06:32PM

No

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, change hate to uncomfortable beside a black person.

Still equates to the same thing, they fear or hate the person

Annasopra · 07-02-2014 06:33PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

State run orphanages should not and never should have existed. The gay couple shouldn't be an option. The only option unmarried man woman married man woman single man single woman no problem. Just because gay couples currently lie about their domestic situation to adopt children does not mean it should be a right.

Single mothers with live in boyfriends are berated for such lies to the state system but not gay couples who lie in a similar fashion with greater consequences to children and the social order than a few Euro extra on a benefit payment.

I presume you have proof of these lies?

darced · 07-02-2014 06:36PM

This post has been deleted.

floggg · 07-02-2014 06:41PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

When a country with over 400K unemployed; another 400K struggling to survive and many thousands forced out through emigration why are the politicians and media focusing such energies and attention on an issue that effects very few people in the scheme of things?

Why is all this energy and pure waste of time not directed at the SSM issue before when the Celtic Tiger was roaring? Why now in the middle of a terrible recession when there are way more pressing issues? Sure Labour of course have kick started a liberal assault and concentrated on that while leaving the working class and unemployed to rot but FG should remember who is larger in this coalition and TDs who are uncomfortable with all this and there are many need to start making this known.

Why is such time being wasted on this? Let the SSM marriage bandwagon do a poll at dole queues around the country? Do they think the majority of middle Ireland gives a dam about this. Civil partnership was quite sufficient.

It would be better to hold a referendum now since the SSM side actually don't want a debate although Una Mullally and her ilk want any opposing views shut down so you couldn't really call it a debate.

So let the government hold it! It will be defeated! Bring it on!

There are two similarities compared to the Seanad referendum which points to this being defeated:

1. The polls are way too high even to the SSM proponents with any modicum of sense this must ring alarm bells. These polls are skew ways and cannot be trusted. The fact they are coming out as 80% in favour is a red flag that this can't be accurate - it is way too high in favour. If it was 55% - 60% it would look more trustworthy. The exact same situation occurred in the Seanad referendum.

2. The politicians will not be able to mobilize their party machines behind this apart from Labour and even then rural Labour TDs will only do this half half heartedly. The Labour party does not have the countrywide reach that FF/FG do.The TDs will pay lip service to it in favor since unfortunately they are now not allowed to speak against it since the vociferous liberal lefties will rip them to shreds. Enda Kenny is lukewarm about this and most of the FG TDs are being railroaded into this but would be against it hand on heart.

Any one who thinks the average FF/FG branch member is going to actively campaign on this knows nothing about politics. There will be little to no campaigning by the average political party member on the ground on this issue. Most of FF voted against the abortion legalization this is a pointer on what opinion they hold on the SSM issue apart from I'm so liberal, progressive and trendy Averil Power cause it gets me publicity. Well this particular Senator should recognize Sen. Jim Walsh's opinion is the opinion of most FF members whether she likes it or not.

The TDs on the government side will probably say they are in favour with some so called renegades being filleted again if they are brave enough to disagree with the current group think same as the abortion referendum. Like the Seanad referendum government TDs and Senators will do sweet FA on the ground in terms of campaigning on it and will not bother getting canvassers out in the rain for this and putting up posters. This is where referendums are won and lost. It is a fact that most party members are older and more conservative especially in FF/FG.

Do the SSM bandwagon really see Mr. Panti convincing them.

The liberal lefties may believe its a dead cert but that's easy to think as you sip a craft beer in Whelans at some obscure gig. Just because you surround yourself with people of a similar view does not mean the country at large holds this view but since they refuse to countenance any other opinion they are convinced there is greater support out there than there actually is.

Hold the referendum; drag out the drag queens to canvass in small towns and to conservative families in Dublin and Irelands major cities let's see how that goes? Sorry but if they think Panti in a full drag costume canvassing Seamus the local FF/FG member in South Kerry in his farmyard is going to win the day they need to get real about this.

In fact it is great the more hysterical and fanatical the SSM cabal become the more they are turning people off.

Connected to my above point re over estimation of the polls which the SSM camp are trotting out - just bear in mind the last great "gay de jour" in an electoral context in his last outing a la Mr. David Norris. His polls were way over estimated and were primarily media driven.

Let him out again - please do he would give a great boost in making sure this referendum will be lost!

Homophobia and discrimination is always wrong and must be condemned but there is no entitlement to marriage or forcing children into gay adoption. This is not a human right like Amnesty now purports. Amnesty used to be into campaigning for prisoners on death row - now its a gay campaign agency when did this happen?

Clever tactic. There's just too much to pick apart for anybody to even begin to try.

I'll go with one very factual in accuracy. The polls in the presidential race changed constantly as the race evolved.

Yes, Norris was the early front runner but as the race developed his poll numbers fell. So it was never the case that the polling numbers didn't reflect the results - his votes reflected his expected position based on final polls.

It was actually just a case that the lead changes hands a number of times as the race developed - which was not helped in Norris' case with some underhanded tactics and regurgitating of old news.

The polls were always fairly accurate.

Also, you are being very offensive to rural people to suggest that they are all backward bigots.

Rural area may be somewhat more conservative, but still on the whole embrace the principal of equality.

Anyway, when it comes to a referendum I'd rather have Dublin on my side than Leitrim.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 06:52PM

Montjuic wrote: »

Didn't claim was asked big difference!

Really? That's a new one in the proof-of-burden games, I must say. How shall we codify this one, then, all?

"If a poster pulls an alleged fact out of their ass apropos nothing, then the burden of proof shall surely be on them. However! If they make such a statement in notional response to a question, then their statement, regardless of how fanciful and far-fetched, shall be deemed true unless extensively rebutted by the other side."

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 06:57PM

Knasher wrote: »

What exactly do you think they are lying about?

I think he's confusing (or else conflating) "a gay individual can adopt, but not a gay couple (as a couple)" with some sort of idea that this entails swearing on a stack of bibles that, while veryvery gay, they're as celibate as the day is long. (Which of course is the correct procedure for becoming a gay Anglican clergyperson.)

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 07:07PM

Montjuic wrote: »

You will never be able to know and I don't have to prove it so....

This tacit admission that you're shamelessly bluffing is a slight relief for those of us that would otherwise be further weeping for the state of the political and educational systems in this country.

I'd have especially pitied anyone that had to read your nonexistent thesis, given the quality of your contributions here.

iwantmydinner · 07-02-2014 07:12PM

Well now.

Isn't that some amount of vicious, bile-fuelled, inaccurate, ill-researched, ignorant, bigoted and abusive posts.

And not a single person converted to their viewpoint. Seems like an awful waste of hatred.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 07:15PM

Montjuic wrote: »

The caveat is all things being equal!

It's hardly a "caveat". The normal procedure for adoption is to determine what's best for the needs of the child, which decision to be taken by legal and child welfare professionals. You're the person that's claiming that this is never being adopted by a gay couple. Which decision to be taken by the Christian Solidarity electoral landslide that'd be necessary to maintain this, the way the wind is blowing on this.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 07:22PM

Montjuic wrote: »

A child with their mother is always better off than a child forced into a gay adoption situation though

Except when they're not, according to what you yourself have already stipulated. Any chance of the slightest bit of consistency here?

Nodin · 07-02-2014 07:33PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

State run orphanages should not and never should have existed. The gay couple shouldn't be an option. The only option unmarried man woman married man woman single man single woman no problem. Just because gay couples currently lie about their domestic situation to adopt children does not mean it should be a right.

Single mothers with live in boyfriends are berated for such lies to the state system but not gay couples who lie in a similar fashion with greater consequences to children and the social order than a few Euro extra on a benefit payment.

Sible gay people can adopt. Soon Gay civil partners will be able to adopt. And yes, that's regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 07:51PM

Montjuic wrote: »

It would be better to hold a referendum now since the SSM side actually don't want a debate although Una Mullally and her ilk want any opposing views shut down so you couldn't really call it a debate.

So let the government hold it! It will be defeated! Bring it on!

This is the sort of silliness the nay-sayers would be equally delighted to have either way. A short date for it, and we'd be hearing all about "being bounced into a hasty decision", "not enough debate and information", and all the usual stuff.

The polls are way too high even to the SSM proponents with any modicum of sense this must ring alarm bells. These polls are skew ways and cannot be trusted. The fact they are coming out as 80% in favour is a red flag that this can't be accurate - it is way too high in favour. If it was 55% - 60% it would look more trustworthy. The exact same situation occurred in the Seanad referendum.

The Seanad abolition referendum suffered from that perennial referendum issue of "vote no for 57 different, inconsistent reasons, most of which aren't actually pertinent to what you're actually being asked". I'm struggling to see how that'll be the case for equal marriage. The only real "split" in opinion is likely to be between, "do you think gay people are slightly unequal, fairly unequal, or very, very equal?" Though maybe I'm underestimating the tangential invention of Declan Ganley's poster campaign, when it in due course arrives. (SSM is a plot between the Belgians and the Bulgarians? No idea, rather stumped, in fact.)

In fact it is great the more hysterical and fanatical the SSM cabal become the more they are turning people off.

I think you might want to bide your time and see which side proves to be the more "voter-repellent"

Zillah · 07-02-2014 07:52PM

No

My only concern about the polls is voter turnout. Sure, most people when asked if they would allow gay marriage will say "Ah sure why not", which is fine - but "Ah sure why not" is not the sort of position that drives a person off the couch and into a voting booth. I'm terrified we'll have a large percentage of well-meaning but lazy people sitting at home, while the far more motivated bigots of the world eagerly line up to tell the jumped-up fags they should know their place.

I really think the pro-side campaigns coming up to it need to focus on convincing the choir to show up and vote, to stretch a metaphor.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 08:02PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I guess we should get RTE to turn it into a gameshow. "How anti-gay can you be without being 'homophobic'!" The judging panel being... well, some actual judges, naturally.

While I'm sure the "vote no because That Type Of Thing is... icky!" will indeed constitute the majority of the actual opposition turnout, I don't think the likes of David Quinn, trying to stick to the narrow bounds of the "redefinition" argument, would thank you for verbalising it in these terms.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 08:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see why any of them would need to come out.

Just to speculate wildly here: perhaps being put in the position of having to constantly lie, at least by omission, and very likely in practice directly, about their personal circumstances simply to keep their job is something they'd regard as an unreasonably stressful imposition.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments