Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 08:08PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

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

Silly silly.

You have no idea of the academic search resources I have at my disposal.

A sample of your writing style and a few key words would suffice and I have reams of both to choose from.

Unless you purchased your PhD of course....but even then it isn't impossible.

Normally I wouldn't care but since you are making a claim from Authority and all....

You say 'social experiment' - I say My Life - Feck off out of it.

Maximus Alexander · 07-02-2014 08:17PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Didn't claim was asked big difference!

You weren't asked. You said it apropos of nothing. Keep track.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 08:19PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Didn't claim was asked big difference!

You made a claim about things that a Mammy can do that a Daddy can't and what a Daddy can do that a Mammy can't but have so far failed to provide a list.

I have a bet riding on this now so when you're ready like...

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:21PM

No

Sorry to be late to this party but here I am. Ok. So the question is "Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?"

Now let me see....

1) Can I think of a single rationale to oppose Gay Marriage that isn't homophobic? [thinks hard].... No. I'm afraid I can't. (see clarification below)
2) Is the Iona Institute opposed to Gay Marriage? Well, maybe I'm misinformed but as far as I know, yes, it is.

Provided I'm correct about point 2, the answer is an unequivocal "yes". Yes, the Iona Institute is homophobic.

One small point of clarification, as promised in point 1. With "marriage" I mean a legally defined term that comprises a legally binding commitment between two people and that confers certain rights to both participants and imposes certain obligations toward the other participant. I am emphatically NOT including any religious connotations in this definition; in a religious sense, "marriage" is defined by each religious institution and it should be allowed to make its own rules of what does or doesn't constitute "marriage" within its own, narrowly defined context, and I will not pass comment on who, in the eyes of any religious organisation, can or cannot get married "in the eyes of the Church". That's THEIR business and none of mine.

This consideration ONLY applies to the secular definition of what "marriage" means, within the context of a legal framework that applies to society as a whole.

So please read my conclusion in that light.

bodhrandude · 07-02-2014 08:23PM

Why is this thread constantly up at the top of the forum, fed up seeing it and I wish it would go away.

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:25PM

No

bodhrandude wrote: »

Why is this thread constantly up at the top of the forum, fed up seeing it and I wish it would go away.

I guess this is something that gets a lot of people worked up. I only decided to post because I, too, kept seeing this thread popping up. I resisted for a LONG time [grin].

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 08:25PM

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.

The logic of your position would actually be to abolish (the legal status of) religious marriage. Civil unions all 'round, church blessings an optional extra (or more precisely, a completely separate thing: have one, the other, or both). Too much baggage for that to be accepted anytime soon, though.

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:29PM

No

alaimacerc wrote: »

The logic of your position would actually be to abolish (the legal status of) religious marriage.

That's a point I've brought up before (elsewhere). Sadly, "marriage" is such a loaded word that many people simply CANNOT think about the term without bringing their own, personal, religious ideology into the discussion. I have suggested before that the term "marriage" should simply be scrapped out of the legal statute books, and replaced with a completely different, secular term. Of course technically the terms would be synonymous and nothing would change "legally", but the actual word "marriage" would no longer be used. After that, the word "marriage" itself could be handed back to the religious people to abuse to their hearts' content, but no longer relevant to discussion about the legal status within the context of society as a whole.

Piliger · 07-02-2014 08:39PM

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.

That would be very very silly. That would leave 'married' people, of whatever gender, with no legal status other than single and have you considered the knock on effect on their rights when their partner is sick or dying ? income sharing ? travel and immigration ? taxation ? children ? property ? and a myriad other legal issues ?

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 08:42PM

No

Piliger wrote: »

That would be very very silly. That would leave 'married' people, of whatever gender, with no legal status other than single and have you considered the knock on effect on their rights when their partner is sick or dying ? income sharing ? travel and immigration ? taxation ? children ? property ? and a myriad other legal issues ?

I'm not getting the impression there has been much thinking things through from this poster tbh.

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:43PM

No

Piliger wrote: »

That would be very very silly. That would leave 'married' people, of whatever gender, with no legal status other than single and have you considered the knock on effect on their rights when their partner is sick or dying ? income sharing ? travel and immigration ? taxation ? children ? property ? and a myriad other legal issues ?

Well, yeah. That's why the first step would be to go through the statute books and actually leave them as they are; just replace the word "marriage" with something else. Let's say "legally twitterpated". Technically everything stays exactly the same. Except, instead of "if you're married you have these rights and those obligations", you would now have to say "if you're legally twitterpated you have these rights and those obligations". So everything stays exactly the same.

Until you start discussing changes to the law. Who would have a problem with gays being Legally Twitterpated? ;-)

Zillah · 07-02-2014 08:43PM

No

bodhrandude wrote: »

Why is this thread constantly up at the top of the forum, fed up seeing it and I wish it would go away.

Vote yes when the referendum comes around and you'll never have to see it again.

Vote no and endure this debate for the next ten years.

*winning hearts and minds*

Piliger · 07-02-2014 08:47PM

No

rozeboosje wrote: »

Well, yeah. That's why the first step would be to go through the statute books and actually leave them as they are; just replace the word "marriage" with something else. Let's say "legally twitterpated". Technically everything stays exactly the same. Except, instead of "if you're married you have these rights and those obligations", you would now have to say "if you're legally twitterpated you have these rights and those obligations". So everything stays exactly the same.

Until you start discussing changes to the law. Who would have a problem with gays being Legally Twitterpated? ;-)

I do see your point ... but wouldn't it just be simpler to open 'marriage' to all ?

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:48PM

No

Piliger wrote: »

I do see your point ... but wouldn't it just be simpler to open 'marriage' to all ?

Of course. Except the religious keep baulking at it and keep throwing unnecessary spanners in the works....

K-9 · 07-02-2014 08:48PM

Montjuic wrote: »

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

When I hear the phrase silent majority I always think of "the voices in my head tell me".

Seriously, maybe the polls are wrong, and there is a majority against it, they aren't very silent though if that's the case, Waters and Iona and people like that are all over the media. Sounds a vociferous minority to me but maybe you and the people you associate with are correct.

If it wins, does that make the silent majority a minority or will it be down to low turnout and bad weather?

Maximus Alexander · 07-02-2014 08:50PM

No

rozeboosje wrote: »

Of course. Except the religious keep baulking at it and keep throwing unnecessary spanners in the works....

Yeah but they're not really doing that because they care about the special word. Or because think of the children. Or any of the other nonsense reasons that get bandied about.

They're doing it for one reason, and we all know what it is.

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 08:51PM

No

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah but they're not really doing that because they care about the special word. Or because think of the children. Or any of the other nonsense reasons that get bandied about.

They're doing it for one reason, and we all know what it is.

And that's why I answered "yes". [grin]

floggg · 07-02-2014 08:52PM

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.

Fallacy alert.

It doesn't just effect gay people. It effects every person who believes in equality in Ireland.

In the same way my belief in equality would be offended by racial discrimination. You can never truly be equal until everybody is.

Moreover, in addition to directly effecting me, it effects my immediate and extended family, all who value me and want he to be treated with equal dignity and effect.

Likewise for my friends.

There are lots of people with vested interests in this - not just the bride and groom.

Also, it's not untested. Gay people have been raising families for years now. They have even been married in done countries for years. The sky didn't fall in anywhere this happened.

So there's no need to get so hysterical.

Apologies - that's a cheap shot. The use of hysterical by so many here is intended to portray the subject (usually gay people) as emotionally unstable and to cheapen the causes but suggesting they are just getting themselves in a tizzy over nothing.

I'm better than that, so I'll stop.

And again, you might answer what child gets a say on who their parents are?

Steppenwolfe · 07-02-2014 08:58PM

Zillah wrote: »

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.

There could be other problems with the actual vote as opposed to the opinion polls. Nobody likes to be seen as bigoted or homophobic. Even if it's a stranger asking you in the street or on the phone. The more opposition to ssm is equated with bigotry and homophobia the less likely people will be to give their real opinion. The vote is anonymous. People are more likely to vote with their gut feeling without the restrictions of societal pressure. I still expect the vote to be in favour, but I expect it to be much closer than the polls are indicating presently.

Wasn't there some discrepancy with the FF showing in the polls after the crash and their acual vote in the election. I vaguely remember a commentator saying it was as if people were ashamed to say they were voting FF again with all the abuse the party was getting, but when it came to the anonymity of the polling booth a significant percentage did the opposite. With an issue as contentious as ssm I could see that effect being a real factor. I'd be interested to hear the views of any professional pollsters on this theory.

Maximus Alexander · 07-02-2014 08:59PM

No

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think the way you have to look at it is compare it to a child who doesn't want to share a toy. The rational solution would be to give identical toys to the other children. However, after doing this, the original child gets upset because he wanted his toy to be special. So you give that child's toy something different. Say it's a doll and you give it a different dress to the ones the other children have. It's still the same toy for all practical purposes, but you've also satisfied the cranky child who wants everything to himself.

Actually you might be on to something:

And the government wanted to end the Scottish practice of regarding a couple as married if they stated as much in front of witnesses. So Scottish Registration Bills were accompanied by Bills to reform the law of marriage. But this was opposed by the Church of Scotland, concerned that the new civil weddings would discourage people from getting married in church.

Would have to root around for information on the history of civil ceremonies in other countries, but once upon a time the churches didn't even want straight people getting married other than on their terms. I wonder what excuses they used then, couldn't have been "procreation" or "the family" or any of that tripe.

rozeboosje · 07-02-2014 09:05PM

No

There you have it. Any argument that hinges on a generic "inability" of gay people to engage in anything that is normally associated with marriage is by definition bigoted - or "homophobic" to use that term.

Whether gays do or don't get married shouldn't be the business of or affect any other person in any sense whatsoever, except possibly ONE: whether they could be parents or not as this could - at least conceivably - affect the children growing up in a household run by a gay couple.

But again, to simply declare any gay person unfit to be a parent is bigoted, plain and simple, and such a position is not even worthy of acknowledgement. And accepting that at least some gay people would be perfectly suitable for parenthood completely invalidates any argument against allowing Gay Marriage in general.

Any person - gay or otherwise - can become a biological parent by natural means (setting aside how much any particular person might enjoy the act of procreation). So the only possible argument left against extending all normal marriage rights to any couple regardless of the sex of either partner would be one considering adoption and similar rights. Again, I see nothing but bigotry in any argument that would blanket declare any gay person unsuitable for adoption.

Given that, consider the fact that for any adoption currently under consideration the prospective adoptive parents are already vetted for their suitability, and then ask yourself, since this vetting is already a normal part of the adoption process, what possible argument could anybody present for a blanket ban against gay adoption? Or gay marriage for that matter.

All these roads lead to bigotry. All of them.

Ghost Buster · 07-02-2014 09:18PM

No

Cabaal wrote: »

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

yes. But they have to ask is all.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 09:21PM

No

Ghost Buster wrote: »

yes. But they have to ask is all.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 09:39PM

Montjuic wrote: »

Feminazi in Chief Una Mutually of the Irish Times

Good to see that any "any implication of 'homophobia' is defamation and impermissible silencing tactics!" crowd are doing such a standup job of maintaining rigorous civility towards everyone participating in the debate.

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

Not to mention, "accuracy".

floggg · 07-02-2014 09:46PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Yeah your right there its primarily with a social engineering experiment and its impact on children but still wondering why during a big recession and not during the Celtic Tiger this whole thing wasn't debated then? Many are not happy with the government loosing focus on what they were supposed to do jobs and the economy. If I was on the dole I would be livid.

No one has answered this?

The illuminati?

Why did people wait until the 20th century to campaign for women's equality and not during the industrial revolution?

spank_inferno · 07-02-2014 09:48PM

No

How is this thread 2700 posts old?

The answer to the original question is "yes".

That's that.

floggg · 07-02-2014 10:00PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

Nope what happened there in the past with unmarried women was a bloody scandal.

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

Pray tell why?

And seeing if you decided to deal in absolutes, even where said mother is a child abusing crack whore?

floggg · 07-02-2014 10:08PM

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.

If you want your argument to be taken seriously, then demonstrate to us why gay couples shouldn't be an option.

I'm presuming its not just because you don't like the idea.

Please also tell us what the consequences for the children adopted by gay couples are. Given that gay couples have been adopting for years in other countries, there has been ample opportunity for research demonstrating the point to be conducted.

Otherwise, the only conclusions we can draw is either you are trolling or your reason is because you don't like gay people.

alaimacerc · 07-02-2014 10:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The fact is David Quinn or Paddy Manning will not turn off people who are voting no

I think you might be pricing in your own subjective judgement a little bit too much there. Weren't you the chap telling us that Ronan Mullan was a grand fellow altogether?

Of course, the fewer people voting "no", the more likely this is to be true...

but Ivana is associated with being very pro liberal abortion, anti-religious in terms of schools and when the department of education had a vote at some schools, a lot of parents wanted religious schools.

Having another tilt at the Big Scary Liberal Agenda windmill again? I'm pretty sure there are perfectly good threads on those topics; if you particularly want to discuss those, you can do it there, without it looking like whataboutery.

floggg · 07-02-2014 10:15PM

No

Montjuic wrote: »

What evidence I saw no credible academic link posted?

Seriously?

Just google lgbt parenting and the wikipedia article on it cites numerous academic sources confirming it.

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments