Should the Iona Institute back off?

Not a NSA agent

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can not blame anyone for getting the best representation for their views that they can. That is the idea in a democratic society. It applies to all interest groups.

Usually its to achieve some sort of goal, I might vote for a politician who is in favour of not segregating children over their religion to represent me but there is a goal there.

What do the 35% want to achieve?

People voted no from all sorts of reasons, disliking the government, random person called them a bigot, they hate gay people or they believed the posters. It is difficult to represent them when many might not even care anymore. Nobody elected David Quinn to represent them, he took that role himself.

Kermit.de.frog

Who elected Panti Bliss? Your argument does not make much sense because if it was accepted this would not be a democracy. Every section of society has the right to have their views represented.

Grayson

volchitsa wrote: »

OMG, I didn't bake one either, will I get sued?

Oh wait, it wasn't "people being sued for not baking SSM cakes", it was a company accepting an order and then breaking the contract for a reason that is not allowed under Northern Ireland's very strict (naturally) anti-discrimination legislation.

(On the subject of the OP, I think the more we see Iona the better, they drive everyone into the arms of whatever they're opposing. But it's a slightly painful process alright, having to watch them display their craziness to the world.)

The judge even said that if a gay couple refused to bake a straight (No, I don't mean a battenburg) cake, they would be breaking the law.

If two FF supporters refused to bake a cake for FG they would be breaking the law.

Not a NSA agent

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Who elected Panti Bliss? Your argument does not make much sense because if it was accepted this would not be a democracy. Every section of society has the right to have their views represented.

Is panti claiming to represent the people who voted yes?

I asked a simple question of why this 35% would need or want lolek to represent it, if you dont know just say that. I represent the people who shop in the local tesco, yay democracy.

Im not saying they cant have someone representing them, I just see a person claiming he represents them and I have no idea why they want him to.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that really valid?

Think if we extended the logic to homosexuals, "their opinions are invalid, hardly experts on marriage or children".

What courses or lifestyle makes one an expert on marriage and children. A Catholic with 10 kids and a degree in sociology?

I'm fairly sure there isn't an Irish group of LGBT people who have conferred the title "institute" to their groups name.

Nodin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Who elected Panti Bliss? Your argument does not make much sense because if it was accepted this would not be a democracy. Every section of society has the right to have their views represented.

He was the "go to" spokesperson for the yes side of the campaign?

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fairly sure there isn't an Irish group of LGBT people who have conferred the title "institute" to their groups name.

The cheek!

Next you'll have the Irish Film Institute and a football club in NI copying them!

Someone mentioned abortion. I'd have abortion available at the drop of a hat...but I'd still welcome Iona's analysis.

K4t

Deleted User wrote: »

The cheek!

Next you'll have the Irish Film Institute and a football club in NI copying them!

Someone mentioned abortion. I'd have abortion available at the drop of a hat...but I'd still welcome Iona's analysis.

Biased analysis; Iona and its members render themselves impotent and abandon their ability to rationally look at any issue, due to their overwhelming adherence to religious doctrine which forms all of their views on issues concerning marriage, abortion, gays etc. etc. I would not welcome their analysis, except as a warning. And the only reason they were so prominent in this debate, is because they were the only spokespeople for a No vote along with their fringe groups; they received equal broadcast time which was their right in a referendum, but let's not start suggesting that they automatically deserve to be heard in general because of that and that they provide interesting or worthy analysis which should be respected. The sooner they crawl back into their caves of religious conservatism the better; until of course they're the main opponents of abortion when again they will have to receive equal broadcast time.

K4t

K4t wrote: »

Biased analysis...

Like pretty much every contribution in political debate or any issue that touches on morality. They are not debated by neutral scientists, you know.

You surely accept that atheists can be biased too. Perhaps their morality or conscience is not linked to religion, it may be linked to a philosophy like, say, socialism. But they don't have a "better conscience" than the religious.

kowloon

P_1 wrote: »

No that would be rather undemocratic. However either way a critical official eye needs to be cast over their charity, tax exempt status.

A big fat YES for this. They hate that word.

LookingFor

It's up to them what they do but I hope people stop taking them so seriously now. The level 'over-balance' in this referendum debate was really quite something in hindsight.

Oh, and there was Breda O'Brien on Six One again, indirectly conceding that all their bull**** about automatic rights to surrogacy, was, well, bull****, and that it's still totally possible to ban it regardless of the Yes outcome. That was the whole crux of the Yes side's argument as to why it was irrelevant to this referendum, and NOW you acknowledge it? Please, please... just go away. Shameless misdirection and fear mongering. How they can show their faces, I just don't know!

LorMal

mcmoustache wrote: »

It was close to 5 in the morning and I was quite drunk. I'm amazed that I could even spell.

The point still stands: the "No" side was not "Oppresssed". Their arguments were misleading and, especially here, often idiotic and they got called out on it.

They got 50-50 airtime despite representing the views of about a third of the population. That's not oppression. If anything they had additional priviledges.

To see an example of oppression, just look at how gey people were treated in this country over the years by people who's views align with the "No" campaign.

Yes, I meant suppressed rather than oppressed - apologies. It really did become nasty and bitter in this campaign. Remember, one third of the electorate voted no. But their views weren't really heard. Why? Because of hectoring, name calling and disrespect shown to anyone out of line with the general consensus. It was really a bit intimidating.
That is not to say that the Iona Institute were much better. The arguments they put together were a bit spurious, convoluted and in no way compelling.
All told, a nasty little event. I really hope we don't have to go through this again in a future Abortion Amendment.

LorMal

Nodin wrote: »

He was the "go to" spokesperson for the yes side of the campaign?

I hope to **** that I never have to take anyone serious who calls himself Panti Bliss' and looks like my Uncle Mattie in a bad frock.

emigrate2012

They'd want to be pretty sharp taking down their misleading posters,cos I'll be reporting and taking pics/location's etc.
Hit them in the pocket (though admittedly they do seem to be deep)
Great day for the country, focus on the positive, not these mutters.First in the world,I have to say I feel extremely proud to be Irish today,I really didn't think I be so proud of us,but f* ck me I do.
And it feels great!

To Elland Back

Equality = the right of one person to express their beliefs is as valid as any other person, no matter how much you disagree with it

LookingFor

LookingFor wrote: »

It's up to them what they do but I hope people stop taking them so seriously now. The level 'over-balance' in this referendum debate was really quite something in hindsight.

Oh, and there was Breda O'Brien on Six One again, indirectly conceding that all their bull**** about automatic rights to surrogacy, was, well, bull****, and that it's still totally possible to ban it regardless of the Yes outcome. That was the whole crux of the Yes side's argument as to why it was irrelevant to this referendum, and NOW you acknowledge it? Please, please... just go away. Shameless misdirection and fear mongering. How they can show their faces, I just don't know!

Did Pat Rabbitte not advocate a Yes vote and tell us all a couple of years ago that you lie to get votes, and that's the reality of politics?

I certainly would not claim injury on the basis that certain aspects are played up to prey on fears. Some elements of the Yes side claimed that a no vote would deny some fundamental human right, a group of lawyers pointed out that this was in fact false.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

I really hope we don't have to go through this again in a future Abortion Amendment.

This was a stroll in a park compared to abortion referendums, they have been like pitched battles in the past, with demonstrations and court cases and thousands wielding placards.

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

This was a stroll in a park compared to abortion referendums, they have been like pitched battles in the past, with demonstrations and court cases and thousands wielding placards.

Jesus, I remember them....horrible- all heat, no light. We keep making a horses arse of it.

porsche959

There will still be a role for Iona but they are perceived as abrasive even by observant Catholics. They might want to tone it down a bit. Focus on surrogacy was obviously a tactical error by them. They probably would have lost anyway but not by that embarassing margin.