Iona vs Panti

Brown Bomber

Panrich wrote: »

Can someone post the link to where the allegations were proven to be false? I must have missed that bit. The correct spelling is paid , by the way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-and-victim-apologise-to-lord-mcalpine-after-admitting-abuse-claims-were-a-case-of-mistaken-identity-8301293.html

Links234

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Am i right in saying that gays are actually no threat at all to the family unit?

Well it's funny because the gays are actually trying to do nothing more than have their own family units legally recognised, so in fact it is Iona who are a threat to family units.

If we strapped magnets to the things that Iona like to spin, we'd have Ireland's power consumption sorted for years to come!

Phill Ewinn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nothing to do with any courtesty. I would have referred to the host as "the host/Presenter/Interviewer". I had no desire to know the names of these talentless Z-listers, or absolutely no intention of referring to a grown man as "Panti" so seeing it is what this person is best known for "the drag queen" it was, just like people on boards refer to the "OP", nothing disrespectfull about it, I don't understand why it's caused you such offense.


Though thanks for sharing his name, Rory it is from now on.

In fairness, he makes a living being called by his stage name like. Using "panti" is keeping him and a few other people in a job.

Brown Bomber

Links234 wrote: »

I imagine because BB thinks there's something wrong with being a drag queen, and by pointing out that Rory performs as a drag queen, he can sway debate, but doesn't realize that people just don't share his prejudices. Bit of a useless ad hominem.

You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.

Phill Ewinn

Cabaal wrote: »

They main view based on the video they produced is they want marriage to be unique to a man and a women (or atleast thats the whitewash argument they will put in a video)

But thats about as backward as racists wanting marriage to always remain between two white people and two black people and to never allow a mixed race marriage.

I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] talentless Z-listers [...] nothing disrespectfull [...] don't understand why it's caused you such offense [...]

This debate is all about prejudice against gay men and women.

It does your cause -- whatever it is -- no good at all when you pull a "Who, me?!" when you're called out on your own prejudicial and juvenile name-calling.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have said nothing against drag queens.

Ditto.

lazygal

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.

Would allowing gay people to marry benefit society?

Ash.J.Williams

just to end the "race" issue here...Iona are on record as stating "race rights" come before gay rights.

this was in relation to gay couples in the UK getting preference over people of different race in adoption situations.

diddlybit

lazygal wrote: »

Would allowing gay people to marry benefit society?

Yes. It will benefit me and others as a members of Irish society. My partner and I will no longer be second class citizens in a legal relationship that is lesser than marriage.

Links234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.

Well, I imagine that saying "I don't care what drag queens have to say" (paraphrasing) is implying that someone doesn't have anything worth hearing by virtue of the fact they are a drag queen. But maybe that's just my imagination.

Cabaal

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

just to end the "race" issue here...Iona are on record as stating "race rights" come before gay rights.

Ok,
But in their view religious views come above any sort of gay rights,

In my view human rights come before any religious views, gays are human's they are people and as such they deserve equal rights for just being who they are.

Sarky

Phill said earlier he's popped me on ignore for having the cheek to ask him if he has any opposition to gay rights that isn't a variation of "I just don't like it", so would someone else mind asking him for me? Thanks.

Ash.J.Williams

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok,
But in their view religious views come above any sort of gay rights,

In my view human rights come before any religious views, gays are human's they are people and as such they deserve equal rights for just being who they are.

yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.

token56

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I will remind you that black people being freed from slavery and marriage changed to 'the union of one man and one woman' happened within a couple of years of each other in the US. Both were done for the benefit of society.

Rather asking if gay marriage would be of benefit to society I think the question should be, would gay marriage be of detriment to society and if so why?

If tomorrow gay marriage was legal how in a weeks time, a years time, 10 years time, how would society as a whole be damaged compared to now when gay marriage is not legal? So far in any debate on this topic the only reasonable answer to arise is that it wouldn't damage society in any way at all. Please anyone tell me how it would.

TwoShedsJackson

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'm still being censored in AH. When the censorship is lifted I'd be happy enough to continue with the existing thread. This thread is about something else.

What are your objections to gay marriage Phill?

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have an active imagination. I have said nothing against drag queens.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know who Iona are or who John Waters is for that matter, nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program but I do know you can't make allegations of homophobia on national TV.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Though if it was me personally and a damaging and false accusation was made against me I would be less concerned about the loose lips of a "celebrity" drag queen and more concerned about these allegations being broadcast on national TV.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nothing to do with any courtesty. I would have referred to the host as "the host/Presenter/Interviewer". I had no desire to know the names of these talentless Z-listers, or absolutely no intention of referring to a grown man as "Panti" so seeing it is what this person is best known for "the drag queen" it was, just like people on boards refer to the "OP", nothing disrespectfull about it, I don't understand why it's caused you such offense.

With respect, the wording of your posts has an undertone of distain for the person in question. That may not have been your intention and I wouldn't begin to suggest it was, but that's how it came across to a lot of people, myself included, as indicated by this post and the number of thanks it received (implying that people agreed with it)

diddlybit

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.

I think it goes without saying at this stage that all views held by the Institute are deeply ingrained in conservative Catholic doctrine. The public also readily associate them with it. The rhetoric is an attempt to appeal to moderate Catholics who have grown sick of the chruch telling them what to do.

Instead of:

*We don't believe in marriage equality because the Church tells us so

It's:

* We don't believe in marriage equality because it will destory the family/society/tradition



Though they would never use the term marraige equality.

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'm still being censored in AH.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

swampgas

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.

There is definitely a strategy being followed where any explicit references to Catholicism are avoided at all costs.

I remember Patricia Casey being interviewed by Matt Cooper some time back, she actually claimed that the Iona Institute was not a Catholic organisation, in fact she tried to say that it wasn't even a religious organisation. Matt Cooper called her out on this but he eventually gave up as she was simply refusing to answer any questions about how all the patrons seemed to be very Catholic indeed.

The RCC reps at the Abortion Hearings were the same, they hardly mentioned religion or scripture at all.

diddlybit

swampgas wrote: »

I remember Patricia Casey being interviewed by Matt Cooper some time back, she actually claimed that the Iona Institute was not a Catholic organisation, in fact she tried to say that it wasn't even a religious organisation. Matt Cooper called her out on this but he eventually gave up as she was simply refusing to answer any questions about how all the patrons seemed to be very Catholic indeed.

Seriously? They must think people were born yesterday.

From their website:

The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society. We defend the continued existence of publicly-funded denominational schools. We also promote freedom of conscience and religion.

Cabaal

token56 wrote: »

Rather asking if gay marriage would be of benefit to society I think the question should be, would gay marriage be of detriment to society and if so why?

If tomorrow gay marriage was legal how in a weeks time, a years time, 10 years time, how would society as a whole be damaged compared to now when gay marriage is not legal? So far in any debate on this topic the only reasonable answer to arise is that it wouldn't damage society in any way at all. Please anyone tell me how it would.

Its the same "will somebody think of the children" crazy argument put forward when it came to divorce in Ireland.

People claimed it would bring the downfall of society, it didn't.

Sarky

I wish divorce had come in sooner, I'd probably have one less aunt to feel awful over because "for better, for worse" means more than "this man beats me and I should leave him".

MrPudding

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

yeah but Iona seem to be avoiding anything to do with religion and you will hear the oft repeated phrase "this is not about religion" when it's brought up. They seem disciplined in their approach, as if they are trained to keep themselves legally clean.

There has been a general shift, in the anti-gay rights movement, in this direction. If you look at the cases on this in the states, Proposition 8 etc, you will see them trying to use non-religious arguments. They tried religious arguments and failed, then they changed. You will also find academics, both respected and otherwise, trying to come up with non-religious arguments.

When you look at the arguments and studies that Iona are using they are the same as were unsuccessful in the US cases. The Regenerous study, Family trends etc. It is all bullsh1t, but it is all they have. Those arguments and studies were shredded in the courts in the US, but they are still being trotted out.

MrP

Delirium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCk5w0zkAx0

token56

Couldn't agree more with what has been posted above.

The Iona institute needs to be in the media. They are struggling to stay relevant as society is becoming more progressive, in much the same way the catholic church is. Luckily they have had friends in the right places that has allowed them to maintain a constant media presence. They are very careful about getting involved in any real debates allowing them build up their nonsense arguments. But is also stops anyone calling them out on their bull**** in a public way. It would be fantastic to see a proper public debate between representatives of Iona and someone in support of gay marriage. Unfortunately they wont ever put themselves in such a scenario because they know they will fail miserably.

Bannasidhe

SW wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCk5w0zkAx0

Jayzuz - the Chamber is only jointed like...


:pac:

diddlybit

John Lyons TD submitted a PQ to the Dail to discuss the payment, but it wasn't selected. He's going to resubmit next week

SpaceTime

Hang on a minute : I gave a like to FF ?!
:eek::eek::eek:

To be fair though, well done to her for raising it like that.

Bannasidhe

SpaceTime wrote: »

Hang on a minute : I gave a like to FF ?!
:eek::eek::eek:

To be fair though, well done to her for raising it like that.

She's FF???

Aw feck...I liked it too.

lazygal

Senator Power was also an advisor to Mary Hanafin when she was Minister for Education at the time the cease your action or your house may be at risk under weight of legal costs to Louise O'Keeffe letter was sent. I wonder what she thinks of those who dropped other cases on the back of such threats and what she has to say about it now?

I think this is a serious case of bandwagon jumping on the part of the Senator.

SpaceTime

I'm not going to get party political on it. If she's changing things from the inside, I'd have to say well done!

I'm actually glad to see people like Averil taking very much more progressive stances than I've seen in the past from FF and FG and I have seen her be quite progressive on a range of issues in debates.

At the end of the day, it's those two parties that tend to reflect centrist voting patterns in Ireland. So, if they're changing it is probably showing how much Ireland's changing.

Democracy's about winning votes, and I think if the parties are changing to reflect how people's attitudes are changing, that's just democracy in action.

I'm still *very* annoyed with FF about the whole economic fiasco though!

Irish politics is highly unusual though due to PR-STV voting and a few other unique features.
It's not what I'd describe as your classic 'strong party' setup like in the UK where the Tories and Labour have very distinct party philosophies. In Ireland voting patterns are very focused on individual candidates so you can find quite conservative and quite progressively liberal people within FF and FG, yet somehow they're all still a united party.

Cabaal

Not sure what dictionary Iona are using

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/30/late-de-hate/

Now Iona say its:

legal definition of homophobia is that you have a fear and loathing, and suspicion of people who are gay, which is an appalling thing to throw at somebody.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/30/late-de-hate/

I suppose its handy to leave out the discrimination bit,

diddlybit

I'm going to establish an Instituion so i can re-define the English language to further my own goals.

In fairness though, Breda O'Brien didn't get away with much as Colm O'Gorman was so on the ball. She got fairly flustered when she got pulled up on putting words in his mouth.

lazygal

diddlybit wrote: »

I'm going to establish an Instituion so i can re-define the English language to further my own goals.

In fairness though, Breda O'Brien didn't get away with much as Colm O'Gorman was so on the ball. She got fairly flustered when she got pulled up on putting words in his mouth.

Just like when she was caught out by actual medical professional Peter Boylan.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/21/dr-peter-boylan-and-breda-obrien-the-transcript/

Sarky

Did anyone check to see if there even is a legal definition of homophobia?

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Did anyone check to see if there even is a legal definition of homophobia?

What foolishness! Noted teacher Breda O'Brien has told us what it is. Class dismissed.

diddlybit

Don't think there is a legal definition.

I would presume ther is a legal definition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

SpaceTime

diddlybit wrote: »

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/index.html - Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989

diddlybit

FF Senator Jim Walsh- definately not pro-Panti

Sarky

I'm only seeing "threatening, abusive or insulting" there, and Iona certainly tick the box for insulting.

magicbastarder

diddlybit wrote: »

Don't think there is a legal definition.

I would presume ther is a legal definition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Do we have a legal defination of a hate-crime even?

phobia generally means fear or hatred of; discriminating against someone does not necessarily imply fear or hatred. i would imagine it would depend on the discrimination involved. we need a less ambiguous term, like 'racist' would be.

diddlybit

Cabaal wrote: »

Not sure what dictionary Iona are using

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

I think we can safely say that Rory O'Neill wasn't being hyperbolic in his comments.

SpaceTime

I'm actually a huge advocate for full freedom of speech.
What I don't like about this situation is that we are supposedly having a very serious debate about what is an issue that impacts upon a significant number of Irish people's human rights and it is being immediately caught up in legal stuff.

I don't believe in silencing the conservative side of the debate either. I would rather just let them try to make their point and argue against it because I am fully confident that the pro-same sex argument stands up where as the anti-same sex argument really doesn't.

I think we can win this one on pure logical argument.

We need to actually have a full and fair debate and the referendum.

I'm genuinely concerned that this is a full 12 months away and it's already gotten to this level of drama.

I think the Government has made a huge mistake by allowing it to fester for this long.

If it's this rough now, I think it's going to get pretty heated as the months go on!

Cabaal

SpaceTime wrote: »

I don't believe in silencing the conservative side of the debate either.

I don't either, in fairness there's really no need because they'll make fools of themselves as the months go by anyway.

At the end of the day they want to discriminate against gay people, no if's or buts about it.

This kind of message from them will attract all sorts of nutbags to their side

diddlybit

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't either, in fairness there's really no need because they'll make fools of themselves as the months go by anyway.

At the end of the day they want to discriminate against gay people, no if's or buts about it.

This kind of message from them will attract all sorts of nutbags to their side

I think to an extent it's advantageous to let them have their say. Those that are undecided in regards to their position on marriage equality will not want to associated with 'nutters'. And there are many, many nutters, especially on Twitter. So enraged and disgusted by the notion of same-sex marraige that they don't appear to sleep and must take toilet breaks at their desk.

We also have to remember that the conservative side is regularly represented on State television and radio, even though they may claim to be silenced. It was Rory O'Neill's comments that was silenced and apologised for by RTE.

Sarky

diddlybit wrote: »

FF Senator Jim Walsh- definately not pro-Panti

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

SpaceTime

diddlybit wrote: »

We also have to remember that the conservative side is regularly represented on State television and radio, even though they may claim to be silenced.

It's fairly common that the very powerful conservative groups in most democracies start to convince themselves that there victims of a liberal media conspiracy when their influence begins to weaken.

Same rhetoric in the USA from a lot of groups.

The simple reality is that public opinion has changed.

Ash.J.Williams

i'm starting to really hate the term "Liberal" and especially "liberal agenda"

token56

Sarky wrote: »

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

:eek: Actually in a state of shock that someone would complain about something like that. Can't believe I didn't hear about this before.

SpaceTime

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i'm starting to really hate the term "Liberal" and especially "liberal agenda"

Yeah, particularly given that economic liberals in the classical sense are like Mrs Thatcher

I find it odd though that liberalism is being used as if it's a term of abuse.
In most social contexts liberalism tends to be a positive thing and what defines modern democratic societies!