Iona vs Panti

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am tending towards that viewpoint but I can see the attraction to providing alternatives to Iona when it comes to presenting the anti side. If nothing else it would cut into the nice little earner they get every time one of them makes a radio/TV appearance.

There is also the - If we are going to have a adult debate - lets have the bloody adult debate and not stifle the opposition within the Gay community. By wanting to 'silence' that in order to provide a united front are we not also guilty of censoring a minority? This makes me uncomfortable....

I can see what you mean there. However in this particular instance, I think the spotlight needs to be kept on Iona. Anything else right now would be a distraction, the media would be all over it, and the opportunity to put Iona properly on the spot and actually make them say why they are against marriage equality is (IMO) just too good to pass up. As long as they are challenged properly by the interviewer or other panelists, and their position exposed for the sham it is, then I'd hope that Iona would be left digging a deep and public hole for themselves.

WoolyJumper

I know this is a little off topic but I feel it needs to be said. Honestly I never watch the Saturday night show and probably wouldn't have heard about it if it wasn't for people on boards discussing it here. I've noticed annoyance/anger about what happened has gone way beyond just gay people... With Straight people complaining to RTE, donating to marriage equality and even talking about going to the protest. I find this really encouraging and even heart warming I know marriage equality in recent years has had strong support beyond just gay people but I never expected to see so many people playing such an active role in the fight for gay rights/marriage equality. Even small things like speaking up for equality on boards or with family and friends can make a big difference to my life and many others and I just want to say a big thanks to anyone who has played any part, big or small in the fight for equality. It really means a lot

Brown Bomber

Daith wrote: »

That they actively seek (and campaign against) for gay relationships not to be seen as the same as a hetrosexual couple in marriage and to deny them marriage and equality based on their sexuality is discrimination.

I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh just because they think marriage is a man and woman doesn't make them homophobes". It doesn't, it's everything else they do.

Fair enough. That makes it more interesting. I am glad that you agree that a preference for traditional marriage alone doesn't make you homophobic but I wasn't aware of the "everything else".

I shall try to find out more about them with an open mind and I meant what I said if they do discriminate against gays or any other minorities then I will condemn the,.

J_E

It's important to put both RTE and Iona under a critical spotlight as they pose something far more dangerous than an unbalanced debate. They are fostering a negative attitude towards homosexuality, and in particular, by playing such an usual gravity on the word 'homophobia', turning it from a word that is important in use by the gay community and serves a specific function to something meaningless and with an excessive impact - the word is not supposed to be used in that context. The most important discussion about this very topic, the one Ireland needs to hear about - has been inexplicably blacked out.

If you can at all, I would really ask you to make the time to turn up at the Gaiety on Sunday at 2PM. We need to show that we do not accept this carry-on in today's day and age and that we are no longer remaining passive about either Iona's weak facade of well-meaning, nor RTE's unexplained 2 weeks of events, the payout, the no comments, the continued deception. For goodness sake, this isn't even a print media issue at the moment, the only place stories are thriving and surviving are on Twitter and The Journal.ie. This is a terrible state to be at in terms of keeping our voices heard, and a cruel plot to discredit and dismiss from our State broadcaster, The Times & The Independent (the 'Patron' papers). This really is a serious issue now, and if you are gay/lesbian, or someone who understands the importance of equal rights, this is something that you should be investigating and thinking about.

david75

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The people who contacted me are very genuine and some are quite high profile in the LGBTQ Community.

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

While I agree that marriage is an outdated idea, it still doesn't distract for the fact tha equality isn't applicable to all in this country.
And while I appreciate that movements will to be involved, it can only be disruptive to the issue at hand. Abandoning marriage is never going to happen officially in our life time. It is happening culturally and we all know that, and I think Iona and their ilk would better spend their time trying to promote it in other areas(another minefield for them) it won't help this debate at all to bring that movement into it I don't think.

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

Sure, but I would suggest that it is an absolutely suicidal tactic to try to argue for marriage equality while simultaneously arguing that marriage is an outmoded institution. It sends a very mixed message, which would be ruthlessly exploited by anyone opposed to equality.

Maybe get equality first, then argue about how relevant marriage is?

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough. That makes it more interesting. I am glad that you agree that a preference for traditional marriage alone doesn't make you homophobic but I wasn't aware of the "everything else".

Of course not. It's like me saying that two parents raising a child are better than one parent. I'm not anti-single parents. I don't go around and say that single parents are an attack on traditional parents etc.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I shall try to find out more about them with an open mind and I meant what I said if they do discriminate against gays or any other minorities then I will condemn the,.

Please do.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Why don't you answer my question. How did she deceive anyone with the definition she used?

I've already answered it twice!

She completely omitted "an extreme and..." from what she claimed was the actual definition of homophobia.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've read this about ten times now and you aren't making any sense.

People hating non-Muslims because the haters think they are Muslims fits perfectly into that definition of Islamophobia.

Not if you can't prove they hate Muslims. Your post was in response to someone graffitiing an ad with a Sikh person (which they mistook for a Muslim) by referencing bombs and taxis.

That doesn't prove they "hate" Muslims, nor does it prove an "irrational or intense dislike". Yet you deemed it to be "obviously Islamophobic".

Daith

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe get equality first, then argue about how relevant marriage is?

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

david75

Daith wrote: »

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

Maybe that's the idea

Daith

amdublin wrote: »

Who's going on sunday?

My banner is going to say something along the lines of:

Iona - stop getting your panti's in a twist about other people's lives.

or else just a simple fek off iona institute!

Yep I'm going to head in hopefully. I'm generally quite a chilled guy but the whole thing has made me angry.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already answered it twice!

She completely omitted "an extreme and..." from what she claimed was the actual definition of homophobia.

This is where I have the problem with your claim of deception.

"strong dislike of homosexuals"

"extremely strong and irrational dislike of homosexuals"

both are referring to people that dislike homosexuals, the only difference being metrics. Both have a strong dislike of homosexuals.

Corkfeen

Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.

Homophobia: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/homophobia?showCookiePolicy=true

The Iona Institute and John Waters consider same sex marriage as something that will destroy the fabric of society. Do you view such a view to be homophobic, BB?

Daith

Corkfeen wrote: »

Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.

Or merriam-webster

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

As Panti said homophobia can also be quite subtle which has kinda being lost in the whole thing.

J_E

You can look up every approved definition of the word if you want, but Rory gives by far the most concise and realistic explanation of it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19q67h_rory-oneill-the-saturday-night-show-11-1-2014_gaylesbian

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

If any of that shower had any shred of decency, then, on receipt of the offer, they'd have passed the money onto some charity.

Careful now - promotion of religious bulls**t somehow qualifies as a 'charitable' purpose.

Daith wrote: »

That's my thought. It kinda feels like it would derail everything rather than add to any debate.

The fact that Iona are the only opposition seeing to oppose ssm is a good thing!

To be bloody honest it would actually look like the gays want to "destroy the institution of marriage" and actually confirm John Waters views!

Yeah, this, at least some viewers wouldn't know or care where you were coming from or why, but just take it as confirmation of JW's 'teh gheys want to destroy the institutions of society' nonsense.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Once more unto the breach for Brendan O'Connor:

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/

"the really smart and ballsy guys are the guys who are buying [property] when no one else is" - Brendan O'Connor, July 2007

J_E

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The people who contacted me are very genuine and some are quite high profile in the LGBTQ Community.

They would be coming from a Feminist anti-marriage in general position. It could detract from Iona in a way as most people would find the idea of abolishing marriage as a legally recognised special entity which must be protected as absurd so that is what they will talk about.

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

I don't Ireland is quite ready to give marriage the chop by any stretch, though. Civil marriage is readily available as a function. All that needs to be done is to allow same sex couples to avail of it, and tweak the relative laws appropriately.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

This is where I have the problem with your claim of deception.

"strong dislike of homosexuals"

"extremely strong and irrational dislike of homosexuals"

both are referring to people that dislike homosexuals, the only difference being metrics. Both have a strong dislike of homosexuals.

I am afraid your argument is completely without merit and this is turning into a game of Chinese Whispers.

She didn't even scale down the definition from "extremely strong" to "strong" as you mistakenly claim.


This is what she falsely claims The Oxford dictionary definition of homophobia is:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.

This is the actual definition:

• an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

I am not trying to trick you here, the deception is staring you right in the face. She has removed two crucial components to the definition. This aversion according to the definition must be both "extreme" AND "irrational".

Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people is homophobic, her lie is to tell us that the Oxford dictionary defines it in the way that suits her argument.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people,

This is exceptionally nitpicky. If she used merriam-webster there would be no issue. It's hardly her personally defined definition.

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Eh BB, she could have used the Collin's Dictionary definition of homophobia if that was what her plot was.

Homophobia: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/homophobia?showCookiePolicy=true

The Iona Institute and John Waters consider same sex marriage as something that will destroy the fabric of society. Do you view such a view to be homophobic, BB?

What are you telling me for? I didn't release the statement and choose the definition, she did.

Brown Bomber

Daith wrote: »

This is exceptionally nitpicky. If she used merriam-webster there would be no issue. It's hardly her personally defined definition.

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

J_E

An incredibly weak argument - I really don't know what you're trying to prove here apart from a game of semantics. This is the kind of thing I mean when talking to friends about people trying to disassemble real discussion on this important issue, with fairly invalid criticisms.

Likewise to the people going through exact dictionary terms - this is the problem we have with the word 'homophobia' today. Trying to fit it into a neat box. It doesn't work like that. It's a more fluid term.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid your argument is completely without merit and this is turning into a game of Chinese Whispers.

She didn't even scale down the definition from "extremely strong" to "strong" as you mistakenly claim.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, BB. Aversion = strong dislike. I'm purposely using that definition of aversion to attempt to explain why I'm confused with your claims of deception.

This is what she falsely claims The Oxford dictionary definition of homophobia is:


This is the actual definition:


I am not trying to trick you here, the deception is staring you right in the face. She has removed two crucial components to the definition. This aversion according to the definition must be both "extreme" AND "irrational".


Her deceptive and personally defined definition tells us that ALL aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people, her lie is to tell us that the Oxford dictionary defines it in the way that suits her argument.

It's not her personally defined definition, other online dictionaries have her definition.

Having a strong dislike (aversion) to homosexuals in general is irrational to a lot of people. not including extremely is just metrics. It all still boils down to a strong dislike of homosexuals. You can of course there is a subtle difference between what she said and what you provided as the definition, but not enough to say it was a lie/deception.

It can easily be explained as she was paraphrasing.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

Ok, have a read of this with Iona where they as part of their submission to the Constitutional Convention uses a report to argue against same sex marriage and removes the part where the report says

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents. -

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/03/29/iona-institute-blatantly-misrepresents-child-trends-research-in-submission-to-constitutional-convention/

Oh and the person who coined homophobia said it means this

[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family"

Brown Bomber

Cydoniac wrote: »

An incredibly weak argument - I really don't know what you're trying to prove here apart from a game of semantics. This is the kind of thing I mean when talking to friends about people trying to disassemble real discussion on this important issue, with fairly invalid criticisms.

What is an incredibly weak argument? Evidently Daly lacked the courage of her convictions and considered her own argument "weak" seeing as she apparently made an active decision to water down the definition which her whole argument was based on.

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

How do you know her copy of Oxfords dictionary doesn't say exactly what she said? Much like various other online dictionaries do? Have you examined all editions of Oxfords dictionary?

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

What is the real defintion? Why would the Oxford one be the real definition when an American coined the term and an American dictionary says this

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

It's incredibly nitpicky and you can't claim there's a definite meaning of homophobe

Lou.m

Not sure if this is right for this forum but I just thought you guys would get a laugh!

And now for the Angelus ....

J_E

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is an incredibly weak argument? Evidently Daly lacked the courage of her convictions and considered her own argument "weak" seeing as she apparently made an active decision to water down the definition which her whole argument was based on.

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

You're looking for a discussion where there is none. This is just dragging down what could be real discussion. Moving on.

Daith and SW, you're losing yourself in an issue that isn't even relevant. You can't see the forest when you're looking at the trees.

Daith

Cydoniac wrote: »

Daith and SW, you're losing yourself in an issue that isn't even relevant. You can't see the forest when you're looking at the trees.

I don't know. At least I was able to link BB to an article about how Iona edited a report to suit their own agenda and had the audacity to submit to the Constitutional Convention.

Brown Bomber

Daith wrote: »

Ok, have a read of this with Iona where they as part of their submission to the Constitutional Convention uses a report to argue against same sex marriage and removes the part where the report says

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents. -

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/03/29/iona-institute-blatantly-misrepresents-child-trends-research-in-submission-to-constitutional-convention/

Oh and the person who coined homophobia said it means this

[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family"

Thanks for that. Yes, it is similar to Daly's new self-appointed covert role as editor of the Cambridge English Dictionary, and is almost certainly worse, though this doesn't get Daly off the hook by any means.

I think people may be getting the wrong idea of me. I have a general loathing or what for right-wing reactionaries; especially the Judeo-Christian Right with a special mention for their Deobandi and Wahabbi brothers.

I have no intention of defending Waters or Iona for anything they are guilty of, I have no interest in joining a witch-hunt. I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here. As well as this I am absolutely for equal rights for all, including gays. I haven't said a single bad thing about gays here.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for that. Yes, it is similar to Daly's new self-appointed covert role as editor of the Cambridge English Dictionary, and is almost certainly worse, though this doesn't get Daly off the hook by any means.

Hold on. You said this about Daly

"These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth."

Do you say the same now about Iona? Cos I personally don't think paraphrasing a definition from a dictionary (and that definition appears in other dictionaries) is as bad as using a report to argue against same sex marriage when the report actually says it can't be.

Brown Bomber

Daith wrote: »

Hold on. You said this about Daly

"These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth."

Do you say the same now about Iona? Cos I personally don't think paraphrasing a definition from a dictionary (and that definition appears in other dictionaries) is bad as using a report to argue against same sex marriage when the report actually says it can't be.

Didn't say it but definitely thought it. I have an extremely low view of Iona now cue to this like I do of all right-wing lobby groups/think-tanks that I was already aware of.

So again, thank you for confirming my assumption.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you telling me for? I didn't release the statement and choose the definition, she did.

I'm just finding it fascinating that you had the desire to cross check her dictionary reference but have yet to have done some background reading on the actual topic and conclude that a person or group cannot be viewed as homophobic without going through the court system. However have no issue labelling Clare Daly a propagandist based on a dictionary definition that she paraphrased(which any person on Countdown or in as Spelling B would happily admit is accurate).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

Daith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here.

I do take exception to this. I've shown you quotes from Breda o'Brien where she says that gay equality must take second place. A link to an article where Iona to be honest misled the convention with their submission. I didn't even mention about Iona complaining that people were being "bullied" to vote to support ssm at the convention. Not a single person said they were bullied. Hardly "out of the window"

Yet you seem more angry with Daly paraphrasing a dictionary and you don't even know what version of dictionary she was using.

I do actually hope you put as much zeal into looking at Iona as you did with Daly.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm just finding it fascinating that you had the desire to cross check her dictionary reference but have yet to have done some background reading on the actual topic and conclude that a person or group cannot be viewed as homophobic without going through the court system. However have no issue labelling Clare Daly a propagandist based on a dictionary definition that she paraphrased(which any person on Countdown or in as Spelling B would happily admit is accurate).

Actually, you'll find that that definition was actually quoted in this very thread prior to Clare Daly's statement being posted. So I seen straight through her deception.

This is starting to get ridicolous. On the one hand we have kw accusing the Oxford Dictionary of being verbose and redundant which is utterly ridiculous and then your equally ridiculous notions of a so-called "paraphrase" which has defied all rules of paraphrasing by being present within quotation marks and was clearly presented as the actual definition.

So what is fascinating is your eagerness to defend deception. I could sit here and point out the Emperor has no clothes all night but the other lads have a point, it is not the issue and I want to respect that this is an issue that is very close to the hearts of many people here, people who have been discriminated against in their lives who have spoken openly and passionately about their struggle and I want to respect this by speaking no more about Clare Daly's deception, someone who I actually respected before I realised her tactics, and distracting from the topic.

J_E

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

It's not like, y'know, publishing incorrect results of a study despite the researchers specifically stressing otherwise.

Or providing a figure of expressions of interest in an Educate Together at 200 and then having Educate Together text in with the correct figure of 1300...

Especially when you don't know what version of the dictionary she was using and are assuming it was the on-line version.

Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

Daith

Cydoniac wrote: »

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

Especially when you don't know what version of the dictionary she was using and are assuming it was the on-line version.

Delirium

Cydoniac wrote: »

Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

exactly

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no intention of defending Waters or Iona for anything they are guilty of, I have no interest in joining a witch-hunt. I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here. As well as this I am absolutely for equal rights for all, including gays. I haven't said a single bad thing about gays here.

So you repeating allegations about Peter Tatchell despite it being explained to you numerous times was Justice In Action, was it?

david75

When the naysayers in this issue start splitting hairs to this degree, you know it's game over and they're grasping at straws.

Best to ignore it from this point. It's game over for these homophobic (in every sense, subtle to extreme) views and they know it. Sun has set on the church and its myopic dwindled following. This is thee paradigm and they are out of time and running scared and picking any small fight they can in order to feel relevant and still in control.

They are neither. And will not be ever again.

ravendude

I think the term homophobia is best understood when it is paralleled with the term racism in the context of apartheid (eg SA, Alabama some decades back)

I'm sure there were plenty of folks in Alabama that were courteous, affable even to blacks, generous and fair possibly as employers, - but would still have held the view that blacks should be segregated at the back of the bus etc., - perhaps because it would "undermine their society" It is not necessarily a matter of exposing hatred or "extreme aversion" etc. But it is discriminatory and plainly racist nonetheless.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So you repeating allegations about Peter Tatchell despite it being explained to you numerous times was Justice In Action, was it?

I didn't make any allegations against Peter Tatchell at all, merely quoted him directly and produced documented facts of his past.

This is a gushing obituary written for a depraved individual. I suggest you google the name of the dead man to find out why.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

Brown Bomber

Cydoniac wrote: »

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

It's not like, y'know, publishing incorrect results of a study despite the researchers specifically stressing otherwise.

Or providing a figure of expressions of interest in an Educate Together at 200 and then having Educate Together text in with the correct figure of 1300...


Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

You are missing the point. It was Clare Daly who decided to define homophobia and to define it using the Oxford English Dictionary, it does add a certain gravitas afterall...Or at least that is what she was misleading people into thinking...

Brown Bomber

ravendude wrote: »

I think the term homophobia is best understood when it is paralleled with the term racism in the context of apartheid (eg SA, Alabama some decades back)

I'm sure there were plenty of folks in Alabama that were courteous, affable even to blacks, generous and fair possibly as employers, - but would still have held the view that blacks should be segregated at the back of the bus etc., - perhaps because it would "undermine their society" It is not necessarily a matter of exposing hatred or "extreme aversion" etc. But it is discriminatory and plainly racist nonetheless.

I agree with you, but I'd like to know of you if in a vacuum and else being equal if someone considers their ideal (not the only) "family" environment to raise child of being a husband and a wife in loving and respectful relationship., with a male role model and a female role model if these people are homophobic?

It is my view that you can view a homosexual relationship as equal in every regard to a traditional one but still acknowledge that they are different with "different" being neither positive nor negative and not be homophobic. This doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are inherently different just that the dynamic of the relationship can be different.

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

For whatever reason, I find I'm trying to remember who it was that said an argument can be made for and against any contention, including the contention that an argument can be made for and against any contention.

teddansonswig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

what a ridiculous generalisation,
some people really dont like change...... ireland is changing , families are changing, better or worse who knows but ridiculous generalisations like this are keeping us in the dark ages.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is my view that you can view a homosexual relationship as equal in every regard to a traditional one but still acknowledge that they are different with "different" being neither positive nor negative and not be homophobic. This doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are inherently different just that the dynamic of the relationship can be different.

Gay partners are only as different from straight partners as straight partners are from other straight partners.

Assuming that there is specific differences that make gay partners lesser is bigotry and it's exactly what the Iona Institute does. They aren't saying that gay couples are equal and they are saying that treating them as equal is somehow dangerous.
This makes them homophobic.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

So even if this nonsense was somehow relevant and was true and somehow actually translated to any sizable portion of gay people and it somehow showed that they were more likely to do so and it somehow made them less able parents or less than ideal citizens. (And none of those things apply to your anecdote.)
So what?
There's no ban on straight people being married or having children if they use drugs past when you personally deem it unacceptable.
So should gays just be banned because of this or should the government start screening straight people before allowing them to marry or have kids?