Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

lazygal

Penn wrote: »

Some of the questions that Norris asked were ones I've been asking myself lately...

Who are the Iona Institute? Why are they always involved in these debates? Why were they involved in the Constitutional Convention? How did they get in that position?

I asked those questions in my OP on the thread.

Sarky

Bobby42 wrote: »

It was indeed. Some mumbled interjection. Pathetic.

Basically how dare anyone question the iona institute.

I suppose it's too much to hope that instead of being a moany arsehole interrupting the Seanad, he might ANSWER Norris's questions.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

I suppose it's too much to hope that instead of being a moany arsehole interrupting the Seanad, he might ANSWER Norris's questions.

Get away with your utopian fantasies.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What about Rum Babas?

Rum, Sodomy and The Lash are all frowned upon.
Well, maybe not that last one.

theteal

worst school tour EVER!

Bobby42

Sarky wrote: »

I suppose it's too much to hope that instead of being a moany arsehole interrupting the Seanad, he might ANSWER Norris's questions.

No, himself and Quinn are more likely to scream "anti catholic racism" at anyone who has the audacity to question the iona institute.

Turtwig

Folks,

Criticising (or praising) Iona Institute folk is fine. But try to stay out of defamatory territory.

Thanks,

Kinski

Mardy Bum wrote: »

there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that confirms major psychological differences between the sexes. There is a whole field dedicated to it; Evolutionary Psychology.

Evolutionary psychology is one of those fields that is fashionable because it's telling a certain group of people what they want to hear. It's built on highly suspect theoretical foundations, and depends on many largely speculative assumptions. There is no "huge amount" of scientific evidence about anything emerging from it. It's not science; indeed, it's probably complete bollocks.

Galvasean

I would hesitate to dismiss the field of evolutionary psychology as 'complete bollocks'. The inappropriate citation of such is another matter entirely...

When did that inquiry by Norris take place?

Bobby42

marriage is under attack apparently, so the fundraising has started:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/18/anything-good-in-the-irish-catholic/#comment-535406

Mardy Bum

Kinski wrote: »

Evolutionary psychology is one of those fields that is fashionable because it's telling a certain group of people what they want to hear. It's built on highly suspect theoretical foundations, and depends on many largely speculative assumptions. There is no "huge amount" of scientific evidence about anything emerging from it. It's not science; indeed, it's probably complete bollocks.

Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because
the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding. Research Paper link

I hope something actually arises from Norris speech rather than just lip service from a very dodgy organisation.

lazygal

Bobby42 wrote: »

marriage is under attack apparently, so the fundraising has started:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/18/anything-good-in-the-irish-catholic/#comment-535406

Sure you're not married at all without the white dress and cascading bouquet.

Galvasean

Loved this comment:
"So think about it, if they let this go through it’s only a short hop step and a jump before the gay mafia take over and ban all hetrosexual activity with madatory bummings/fanny lickings for all and those who try to resist will be sent to the concentration camps, where they’ll have to concentrate on being camp."

Sarky

I really hope his asking for money means the American funders are displeased with Quinn's failure to stop X legislation.

Stark

He's not happy with Peter Boylan that's for sure: https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/324892149621608448

Delirium

Stark wrote: »

He's not happy with Peter Boylan that's for sure: https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/324892149621608448

Don't like the message? Just attempt to paint a picture that the messenger wasn't a suitable candidate. very grown up :rolleyes:

Bobby42

Aparently a former master of a maternity hospital still isn't good enough.

Nodin

...the twitter is good, the way it highlights the reactionary and shallow nature of the man.

oceanclub

Bobby42 wrote: »

Oh dear...

Based on David Norris' video concerning the Iona Institute, I contacted ChildTrends & got responses from their friendly VP of Strategic Communication. He said they had already sent the following letter to #ccven (published in its entirety with permission):

7315 Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 1200W
Bethesda, MD 20814
240/223-9200
240/200-1239 fax
www.childtrends.org
www.childtrendsdatabank.org

April 4, 2013
The Honorable Art O'Leary
Secretary
Constitutional Convention
16 Parnell Square East
Dublin, Ireland
Dear Sir:


Child Trends, based in Bethesda, Maryland, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center focused on children and youth issues. It has come to our attention that our 2002 Research Brief, "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We do about It?" has been referenced in testimony submitted for the upcoming Convention on the subject of same-sex marriage.

We would like to submit to the Convention proceedings the following note about this research:

This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted prior to 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adopted parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex partners or adoptive parents.

Please note that the paragraph above precedes the brief on our website.

Child Trends has a 30-year history of providing credible research to the U.S. government, state governments, foundations and nonprofit organizations. We are guided only by the findings of our research, and not aligned on either end of the political spectrum. We trust any review of our 2002 report on Family Structure and Children will take into account the scope of the research and not be misconstrued to advance one side or another of the same-sex marriage issue.

Sincerely,
Carol Emig
President
Child Trends

Kristin A. Moore, Ph.D.
Senior Scholar
Child Trends

P.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

Sure you're not married at all without the white dress and cascading bouquet.

Like this?

Galvasean wrote: »

Loved this comment:
"So think about it, if they let this go through it’s only a short hop step and a jump before the gay mafia take over and ban all hetrosexual activity with madatory bummings/fanny lickings for all and those who try to resist will be sent to the concentration camps, where they’ll have to concentrate on being camp."

If we exclude bumming and fanny licking from the definition of acceptable marital activities an awful lot of heteros are going to be upset

Kinski

Mardy Bum wrote: »

"Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because
the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."

Yeah, the "firm grounding" that led to one notorious book in which the authors theorised human rape in terms of the anatomy of fruit flies. Why would anyone "endorse a principled skepticism" when faced with the field that gave us that one?

Mardy Bum

Kinski wrote: »

Yeah, the "firm grounding" that led to one notorious book in which the authors theorised human rape in terms of the anatomy of fruit flies. Why would anyone "endorse a principled skepticism" when faced with the field that gave us that one?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a generalisation about the whole field from one piece of scholarship? The quote I actually posted mentions there is an uneven quality to some of the research. The link to the paper might clear up some of the reservations you have about the framework and underpinnings of the research involved.

EDIT: Just googled your reference. There has been numerous studies completed since. Its important not to conflate "is and ought" also regards the research.

Nodin

ninja900 wrote: »

Like this?





If we exclude bumming and fanny licking from the definition of acceptable marital activities an awful lot of heteros are going to be upset

All oral pleasures are on the banned list. Stimulation involving the hands etc is also forbidden. Some stimulation of the breasts is permitted but not to the extent that it leads to orgasm. Climax is to be the result of penetrative sex and nothing else. Thems the rules.

Hotblack Desiato

Thanks. I'm noting all this down.

mikom

Nodin wrote: »

All oral pleasures are on the banned list. Stimulation involving the hands etc is also forbidden. Climax is to be the result of penetrative sex and nothing else. Thems the rules.

But God.......my wife is a paraplegic.

Nodin

mikom wrote: »

But God.......my wife is a paraplegic.

While reading it, it did occur to me 'what if either/both party are incapable of the act'. There was no mention of such exemptions. I'll dig up the links later.

Nodin

mikom wrote: »

But God.......my wife is a paraplegic.

http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/question-is-oral-sex-allowed-in-a-catholic-marriage/

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/28/catholic-bishops-to-straight-marrieds-no-more-oral-no-more-handjobs-no-more-anal

http://fathershane.com/post/7280016826/today-my-boyfriend-asked-me-what-sexual-acts-are

Stark

Those celibate feckers have really thought a lot about the whole sex thing.

lazygal

mikom wrote: »

But God.......my wife is a paraplegic.

Some of my best friends* are paraplegic and they don't think marriage should be allowed for them.

*best friends may or may not be made up to suit an unpopular argument.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Some of my best friends* are paraplegic and they don't think marriage should be allowed for them.

*best friends may or may not be made up to suit an unpopular argument.

Some of my best friends* are apoplectic that marriage is not allowed for them.


*may or may not have friends.