iona

‘The Truth About The Iona Institute’

A somewhat imbalanced (in fairness) Iona Institute infographic by ‘AL’.

He writes:

There’s a lot of information out there [alleging] how deceitful Iona ‘Institute’ are. So much so that it can get confusing. Which was why I spent a lot of today compiling it all in one infographic.

*The Breda O’Brien quote is out of context. We offer the directors of Iona Institute a right of reply should they wish. Anytime.  Your own infographic even.. Look, we have no money.

Sponsored Link

256 thoughts on “Ionagraphic

  1. Just sayin'

    I’m not a fan of Iona but you can almost taste the spite in the infographic. If this is a taste of the referendum campaign, I’m not looking forward to it.

    Is anyone allowed to vote No without being branded a homophobe?

      1. ABM

        It was put together by some bitsy who knows how to do computers.

        The word distribution claim is off the wall stuff.

        “data counted occurances of sample terms on ionainstitute.ie” – LOL!

        There’s nothing more dangerous than a hobbyist who thinks they know better than a professional.

        Anyway, the fervant foaming-at-the-mouth photoshopper with the yahoo address isn’t willing to stand over hums graphics. I’ve a funny feeling David Quinn, Breda O’Brien et al would eat hum for breakfast.

    1. Sam

      Very defensive there “Just Sayin’ ” .

      Care to point out
      a) where the infographic is wrong
      b) where Iona haven’t been lowering the tone of the discussion
      ?

      Do you think there are any reasons for opposing marriage equality that are not homophobic?

      1. mauriac

        so even saying that you think marriage is one man marrying one woman (i.e. defining the word as it is currently used in Ireland ) is homophobic ?

        1. Stephanenny

          Thinking that marriage is one man and one woman is not a reason to vote against it. If my front door is painted yellow that doesn’t mean I can’t paint it green.

        2. Manolo

          In my opinion:

          – Saying that YOUR marriage must be between a man and a woman is absolutely fine.

          – Saying that MY marriage must be between a man and a woman is intrusive, obnoxious, arrogant and, frankly, none of your fupping business.

          – Telling a gay couple that their marriage cannot take place because you don’t want it is so bigoted and deluded it is almost funny. Oh, yes, it is homophobic.

          Can you understand where I see the limit of your rights on the subject? Yes, were mine and everyone else’s begin. Live and let live.

          Peace.

          1. newsjustin

            That is the limit of an individual person’s rights, yes, I agree.

            But surely the State must say what is permitted and what is not? Otherwise, there would be no rules governing marriage in the state.

          2. Manolo

            But newsjustin, isn’t this the point of the referendum, to ask people whether these individual rights should be recognised by the state?

          3. ABM

            Yes, but YOUR marriage is not really a marriage at all, is it?

            Now if you (and/or society) want to artificially alter the meaning of the word “marriage” by way of enforced semantic re-orientation, then best of luck with that.

    2. Nollaig

      You can almost taste the spite in much of the Iona Inst’ comments too. They invite close scrutiny.

    3. Clampers Outside!

      Awwww, did the truth hurt a little-biddile-bit.

      Who the fupp cares if some institute gets shown up for what they are. That is not spitefulness, what it is is a responsible and succinct riposte to the spinners who prey on the ignorance of others.

      And very well done to whomever put this together, I look forward to sharing it as widely as I can. My Mum will get a kick out of it !

        1. realPolithicks

          That’s how these guys think. They equate gay marriage with incest and bestiality, they’re ugly hate filled people.

          1. ABM

            Actually, if you listen to the Breda O’Brien interview, she made a good point about grandmothers rearing children. They don’t want to get married to their daughters – it’s self-evidently true!!!

            Now, there are plenty of sociology professors with short hair in North American (and European) universities who have made their careers out of justifying all kinds of unions (including incestuous relationships and relationships between the mentally retarded). Holland had to row back on the bestality (and weed and soon prostitution) – the axioms of contemporary liberalism (sprinkled with plenty of feminism) applied in the real world end posed serious common sense problems for wider Dutch society. Surprise, surprise…

    4. Stephanenny

      You’re either a homophobe or simply incorrect in my experience. I’ve not once heard a non-homophobic, factual argument against it.

    5. rotide

      I made two predictions last year. One is that the referendum will easily pass, the other is that everyone who votes no will be demonised as a homophobe (in the run up, no one will care afterwards)

      Nice to be right.

    6. munkifisht

      Well considering voting no means that in your view there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality and there doesn’t seem to be a rational and logical argument anyone can make against homosexuality or gay marriage, then yes, I think if you vote No you can go ahead and brand yourself homophobic.

    7. Just replyin'

      “Is anyone allowed to vote No without being branded a homophobe?”

      Given that ‘gays are icky’ is literally the only reason anyone would oppose marriage equality – No. Nobody can vote no without being a homophobe.

    8. d4n

      Is there any reason to be against gay marriage & gay couples raising children other than homophobia? I’ve only seen ignorant bigoted and often completely false rationalisations.
      So, unless there are, frankly, for me at least, no. Because they are homophobes.

  2. Jane

    I’m sure plenty of people will vote no without personally being called a homophobe. However, I have yet to see anyone say they’re voting no without expressing a homophobic reason for planning to do so. Either you believe in equality for people regardless of the sexuality or you don’t. If you don’t, no matter how you try to dress it up with misdirections or spurious concern for unaffected groups, you are actually a homophobe.

      1. Joe

        Haha, so true…

        Thanks for reminding me of the very important and only justifiable reason to vote no.

    1. Bluebeard

      I know someone who is voting no because she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its what she always believed and always knew. i she a homophobe?

      1. Sam

        She’s ridiculously ill informed.

        Catholic Marriage may be restricted to one man and one woman, but that isn’t the only definition of marriage.
        Now, if she’s unaware of the fact that there are records of same sex marriages from pre-industrial times, that’s understandable. And of course more recently there are extant same sex marriages.
        If, on the other hand she is simply ignoring that, then she might want to ask herself why…

        1. Bluebeard

          The point I am making is that she is not a homophobe. Not a bone in her body. You might consider her mis-informed, but that haughty attitude by the yes side is becoming a pain in the hoop. Throwing accusations of homophobia around is becoming a pain in the hoop.

          1. Joe the Lion

            You’re completely incorrect.

            Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

            Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.

            Thus denying people the right to marriage equality a ‘belief’ only based on their #sexual orientation = homophobia.

          2. Jess

            Im sorry homophobia being thrown around is a pain for you. Now imagine how much of a pain it is to be discriminated against because of your sexuality

          3. Sam

            What horse crap.

            You “might consider her misinformed” and you call it a haughty attitude to consider someone misinformed, when verifiable facts contradict her?

            Logic must pi$$ you right off then.

          4. Sam

            “created in a lab”
            That’s hilarious … which “lab” did the Chinese use when they were writing about such relationships in the Han and Ming dynasties?

          5. Bluebeard

            Oh! So that makes them verifiable facts? Opinions like that fuelled very cruel things in the past. Name me one fact in your lesson on homophobia.

          6. Sam

            Also, you’re letting the mask slip there. In the face of facts, your own spite comes into clear focus… ‘pc goobledook’ is how you respond to someone pointing out that outside of the cultures dominated by the abrahamic religions, people were a bit more open minded on some topics.

          7. Jess

            “So it’s tit for tat then jess. I figured it was something like that.”

            Yes bluebeard. You being annoyed about homophobia being thrown around is exactly the same as being denied the right to marry based on your sexuality. In fact I’d go so far as to say that you’re the real victim in all this.

            Je Suis Bluebeard!

          8. d4n

            The point you’re making is incorrect. Does this person want to make everything outside her experience illegal? Or is just gay marriage?

      2. Clampers Outside!

        Just like many believed the world was flat because that’s “what she (the world) believed and always knew”, doesn’t mean they are correct to continue thinking it when more knowledge (and hopefully with it, better understanding) is introduced to the mix.

        To continue thinking in a traditional or habitual manner like that is lazy and heuristic and leaves no room for advancement of any thinking, especially when that thinking is backed up with false claims such as those proffered as a fact by the likes of Iona.

        So, no, not a homophobe, just willfully ignorant.

      3. Holden MaGroin

        Well thats the way it’s always been so it has to be right. Hasn’t it?
        We should never change. Should we?

      4. realPolithicks

        If you are opposed to equality for gay people(which your friend is), then yes you are a homophobe.

    2. Bluebeard

      Thats pretty close to incitement. And unfortunately too common for the yes side. The referendum is there to be won, it will be a shame if people like you make the victory as divisive as you are seeking to. Where is the tolerance for others that you demand for yourself?

      1. Jane

        Other people are free not to get married to someone of their own sex if they don’t want to. It’s when they extend that to preventing people who would like to do it from being allowed to that the problem arises.

        The reality is that you’re free to define marriage as between a man and a woman in your own life. I’m a woman married to a man, our marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s our definition of our personal marriage and it’s fine for us. When you have that right yourself and think that having that right gives you permission to also define what a marriage would be for everyone else, that’s where you make your error. You just don’t have that right. Other people will define their own relationships and marriages. That’s their right.

        I have gay friends and family and the idea that I would have the arrogance to tell them that their relationships don’t exist on the sams basis as mine is utterly beyond baffling to me. Even if I thought such a weird, self centered and closed thing, I still would not have any business saying that what is right for me is by some bizarre extension right for everyone else.

        There is no way for me to comprehend that point of view.

        1. Bluebeard

          Fine, you believe marriage is the union between any two people. Others don’t. Its their belief as yours is yours. It doesn’t mean that those people are homophobes. To call them that is just nasty and selfish and does your side no favours.

          1. Sam

            That’s a cop-out. If they don’t agree other people should be allowed to get married that’s one thing, but the fact remains that it has happened in the pre-christian past, and is becoming legal in more places as time goes by.
            If you want to stick your head in the sand as say it’s not a ‘real’ marriage, then you’re ignoring reality, and inviting all the ridicule which accompanies that.

          2. Joe the Lion

            Seems to have hit a sore point. You’re completely incorrect.

            Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

            Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.

            Thus denying people the right to marriage equality a ‘belief’ only based on their #sexual orientation = homophobia.

          3. Bluebeard

            So the whole no side are homophobes. The church was never as dogmatic in its absoluteness as you folk. A rather cheap way to win a referendum for which the words compassion and equality and respect are invoked. I’ll be voting yes, but out of love not hate.

          4. Jane

            I think it’s fair to charactarise people as homophobic if they cannot see past their personal belief as to what marriage is because that belief overrides their belief in a exclusive concept of marriage. The problem is that it’s not an equivelent belief. One can believe in a concept like marriage is a union of a man and a woman. One can believe that all people are equal regardless of their sexuality. It’s which belief that you choose to prioritise that defines whether you’re a homophobe or not. One belief has real life consequences for real people, the other is really just a belief.

            You can say I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I believe the right of homosexual people to live as equals overrides my beliefs about marriage and I don’t think that anyone would call you a homophobe. It’s when you say that the sex of two people who choose to marry matters more to you than the right of two people to contract to live their life according to their own wishes that you really have to ask yourself some questions and probably admit to the fact that you really aren’t too sure that you believe that homosexual people are fully equal people with the same right to choose how they live their life, and in believing that, you may well have to admit to being homophobic.

          5. Bluebeard

            Absolute rubbish. The holding of ones opinion does not make you hate the holder of another. I can respect that lady’s point of view and still hold my own. It’s a democracy. You can’t let her have her opinion without labelling her homophobic. That’s small minded and vindictive and just leads to more hate. It’s not a sociology lecture. It’s real life.

          6. Stephanenny

            You can repeat the line about simply having a belief that marriage is one man one woman all you like but a few extra questions to absolutely everyone I’ve met with that attitude soon reveals a lot more homophobia.

            Simply saying that the status quo is the status quo, is not a reason to maintain the status quo.

          7. ahjayzis

            If you believe doctors are/should be all men, and nurses all women, that doesn’t make you sexist, no?

          8. timbot

            Does your argument not amount to something along the lines of…why are you so insistent in calling me a racist, I just believe that [insert racial group here] are just not as smart as [insert other racial group]? Am I not allowed to believe that? That doesn’t make me a racist, just ill-informed.

          1. DT

            I think (and hope) the Yes side will win, but Bluebeard has a point. If the central theme of the Yes side campaign is based on painting anyone considering voting No as a homophobe, then the campaign will be a) divisive and b) closer than it needs to be.

            There are many positive reasons for voting Yes and by focusing on them, the Yes side will have a much better chance of persuading a broad swathe of people who currently have vague irrational fears or misconceptions about what gay marriage might mean for society.

          2. ahjayzis

            In fairness, the Yes side have a point in that. And the No side saying the gayz are going to steal kids / abolish mammy and daddyhood isn’t divisive?

            Much more sinned against than sinning.

        2. Ciarán

          wait a minute…you mean we’re NOT forcing everybody to marry someone of their same gender???!!

          Now I’m voting No against this watered-down compromise referendum.

  3. Cean

    Not a fan of Iona at all but that’s a pretty terrible graph. Last thing that’s needed is some over zealous Yes campaigner pushing people to actually think of Iona as the underdog or worthy of sympathy.

    Attack their points (as in some of the stuff there) but not the player or their playground.

    1. Sam

      I disagree.
      They have a track record of lies and misdirection and it’s well worth the time to point that out.
      It’s not like RTE will pull them up on their bullshit.

      1. stev

        They should be attacked as an organisation. You can’t just take care of the symptoms, you need to root out the cause of the problem. It’s a nasty little organisation that spreads misinformation and untruths in order to preserve some faux-ideal of a society that never existed. Strip them of their baubles of faux academia and they are exposed as the spite-filled wannabe think-tankers-but-really-just-shrill-soap boxers-that-ryhmes-with-think-tankers that they really are.

        The infographic does look rubbish though.

  4. Soundings

    What’s the story with Ben Conroy shown as an (inverted commaed “intern” above), who is described as the son of Breda O’Brien. How come they don’t share the same surname?

    1. Jordofthejungle

      Ben Conroy is the son of Breda O’Brien and Brendan Conroy. Brendan, arguably the more hardline and odd of the two parents does not work and homeschools Ben and his sister. Brendan Conroy now spends most of his time monitoring RTE – a name with which this organisation is more than familiar – and is certainly eager to exploit the BAI balance criterion.

      There is also Petra Conroy and her clan from Catholic Comment – she is Brendan ‘s sister. All this lot are linked either by blood or marriage and from the religious anti-abortion movement. Catholic Comment’s Wendy Grace recently married Pure in Heart’s head Karl Melady, the latter group sharing offices with Iona, although David Quinn insists there is no link. Yeah right, not officially maybe..

      At this stage there is utterly no point screaming homophobes at this crew as one is merely playing into their hands. Nor is there any point dismissing parenting arguments with a, however true, “this is not relevant to the marriage equality debate”. This will not stop the scaremongers and question beggars of Iona and the like. These arguments can be won on the merits with the help of calm, cool and rational speakers with a coherent and solid message. The Yes campaign does need to become more cohesive and articulate with voices that speak and resonate beyond the world of twitter and the already converted.

      1. barton

        So, just a small bunch of people have all this… power/influence? Is it because the Catholic church has become so toxic (child sex abuse scandals) Iona have stepped in to do their work?

        1. Jordofthejungle

          Iona are no different to most outfits when it comes to spin and PR. In fact they’re rather savvy. David Quinn is well aware that the Church preaching and adopting a hectoring tone would be utterly counterproductive. He is also well-aware that Iona have to hide any hint of a dislike or mala fides against homosexuality. That type of moral crusade would be dangerous given that in a small country like Ireland most of us know or are personally friendly with gay people.

          So the strategy chosen is to query the value in upholding a certain idea of the family and to press the emotive “think of the children button” while at the same time claiming to “respect” gay people. Celibate gays perhaps. They do it though with soothing platitudes, faux-academic sounding sloganeering and just a little bit of mendacity. Not to mention the Orwellian trick of claiming Marriage Equality is not about gay people but “children’s rights”. Iona are very much the Church but they’ll never admit to you that the driving force and foundation stone of their opposition to marriage equality is religious: namely sinfulness of “homosexual relations”.

          1. Joe the Lion

            totally correct. bravo, Sir.

            The object of the campaign against this kind of thing must be to highlight the all too easy access their disproportionate representation in public media does not merit, if you get my drift

          2. Clampers Outside!

            Remember when Ronan Mullen came out (no pun intended) with the line that the Iona Institute was not just for Catholics but all religions.

            Wish I had a link :)

            And here, where be Ronan on that infographic, has he be pushed out?

      2. missred

        Ugh, yer man Melady appeared last year on Prime Time about the pungent bigoted garbage that their shower of scum Pure In Heart calls a sex ed class. Their leaflets that are handed to young people state it’s basically abnormal to be gay and their demos include showing how you are like a used piece of sellotape if you have sex with more than one person. I have never wanted to throw things at the telly so much

  5. Llareggub

    This tells us nothing we don’t already know. That piechart is dodgy too. What about all their concerns for de unborn babbies?

  6. Joe

    Ye it’s flawed and kinda rubbish but it speaks the truth.

    It doesn’t say anything about iona’s backers although I think that info is bock the robbers blog. Worth a look.
    It also needs brighter psychadelic colours like Alan Shatter’s adverts in local papers for his election campaign a few years back.

    I like the iona Institute though. it’s great to see blatant bigotry out in the open and they’re so pathetic, boring and obvious about what they represent that it’s just hilarious to witness them try to hammer their bullshit into peoples heads..

    I still don’t fully understand how in the hell these bigoted homophobes end up in EVERY live-on-air media discussion about these issues. I get that there are a lot of religious and older generations of people opposed to the idea but It seems without this merry band of bigoted liars there would be no real opposition to this basic issue of equality. In a way, for anyone undecided their obvious bigotry is just making voting yes seem like the best option.

    Surely, if they wanted to be more effective there would be several of these fake separate groups working together and taking turns to spread the bigotry and lies or appearing on the same shows and sometimes arguing with each other for added effect. Even at doing their job as promoters for bigoted lies they fall desperately short.

    If there was a justifiable reason to vote no I’d love to hear one but you’re not going to get that from these ignorant, outspoken, negative ass-hats… Just more and more yawn….

    I do hate them for hijacking the IONA acronym though, that’s unforgivable.

    Anyway, this brightened up my day, thanks.AI.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      “I still don’t fully understand how in the hell these people end up in EVERY live-on-air media discussion about these issues.”

      I asked SIPO about that, as they are supposed to be a watch dog on lobbying and interest groups. Unfortunately at this point registering with SIPO as a lobby / interest group is voluntary, so the like of Iona or YD don’t have to register as a ‘legitimate voice’.

      When SIPOs rules change, and there is changes coming, that will compel these groups to register we will be able to see where they get their funding. When that occurs it will expose YD and Iona (or YD for sure at least) as being majority funded from interests from abroad and when that happens they can be point blankly refused a voice on panel debates on the like of RTE for representing interests not on this island, based on their funding.

      But for now, how do they get on? Through persistence and insinuations of being ‘shut out’ of debates while claiming to represent people on this island. So basically they get on through bully tactics and lies and false claims of representing X number of people.

      When SIPO does get new powers it will take the sting out of these interest groups that are funded by Christian fundamentalists from around the world (ie USA).

  7. Odis

    I’m told at the moment the Yes side dominates with 70% of the vote. It is therefore their referendum to throw away.
    Iona argues, that same sex marriage is bad for children.
    The Yes side argues – anyone who votes No is a spiteful and bigoted dinosaur.

    The problem with the robust approach currently used by the Yes side, is that the vote is a secret ballot. In the polling booth no one can see you vote No.

    The Yes side should consider knocking off crap like this. It may well alienate the Don’t Knows and some of the Anti PC Yes vote.

    1. Sam

      Personally, I think the point made in the short ad some years back was the best argument – with the guy knocking on every door in the country asking for permission to marry his girlfriend, and pointing out that this ridiculous situation is basically what same sex couples face in this country.

      There are people with ingrained knee-jerk attitudes in this country, and sometimes the best thing is to force them to try to come up with any reason why they should have any say whatsover in whether Tommy from Donegal can marry Frank from Cork, while Tommy and Frank have no such veto over anyone else’s marriage.

    2. Jordofthejungle

      Agree with this. Previous referenda have shown that the Irish voter doesn’t at all like to be corralled into voting one way. It’s all very well to preach on twitter, broadsheet and to the constituency of the converted – I enjoy it at times: a sort of consolidation of support but the Yes side must become cohesive and change the tone and content of its message to the public at large, who do not tweet and read Broadsheet, to one that is robust and rational. The Referendum can be won on the merits but not by screaming homophobe and “that’s not relevant”, however true it may be. We are fighting against those seeking to create a dishonest doubt by whatever means but the antidote is calm, clear and reasonable argument grounded in reality. The Yes-side could do with a few more middle-of-the-road speakers with wider appeal.

      1. Joe the Lion

        I see what you’re saying but don’t underestimate the opposition or the breadth and depth of their reach into mainstream opinion already. A counter-argument to your position it would appear would be to make the matter so divisive, most middle of the road folks are sick to death of it and don’t bother voting at all.
        That’s the real potential drawback in your suggestion – without some ‘snide commenters’ apathy could lead to low turnout which traditionally favours a conservative agenda.

      2. Don Pidgeoni

        True, I like the ad that Sam talks about, very effective. But I most “non-Twitter” people I know are already on the Yes side

      1. Joe the Lion

        I got it

        Unfortunately you and your ilk don’t get to dictate to me whether what I believe or advocate is for reasons of ‘hate’, ‘love’ or whatever misguided way in which you characterise those terms and misappropriate them for your hate-filled, homophobic agenda.

        As for the Church not being as ‘dogmatic’, one could well argue that the previous generations were so brainwashed, compliant and lickspittle-like in their tacit acceptance of pederast priests that no dogma was in fact needed. But of course you’re talking absolutely meaningless gibberish anyway.
        I can well remember being force-fed sacraments, made to wear altar boy costumes, instructed to show subservience and acquiescence to ‘people of faith’ at all times. There’s no need for dogma when the jackboot of intolerance is firmly held on the supplicant’s throat.

      2. rotide

        There you go, Bluebeard already said he was voting yes but now he’s a homophobe. You’re proving Odis point.

  8. JimmytheHead

    Marraige EQUALITY lads, its very simple. Regardless of who you fancy in the nip, each person is entitled to the same rights are privileges should they choose to use them. Iona have their own agenda, fact is theres a wealthy minority of religious bigots who are happy to pump money into an organization that wants to stop the gays from being equal. Parasites like Breda O’Brien and that Quinn tosser probably dont even believe half the tripe theyre flogging, they just want to get paid for doing F*pp all and good old christian values will keep the mortgage paid for the foreseeable future

    1. Sam

      But Jimmy, it’ll make God angry…

      Didn’t you read about it in Leviticus? As you can see from our constitution, getting Tattoos, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics are also illegal in Ireland. We can’t just pick and choose now can we?

      Iona are clearly the profits prophets of God on this matter ;p

      1. JimmytheHead

        I like you, lets run away and have a same sex union whilst setting up a multicultural textiles production facility beside the sea and live off the land like hipsters x

      2. Clampers Outside!

        “As you can see from our constitution, getting Tattoos, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics are also illegal in Ireland. ”

        I’d love a link to more on this… any chance you know of one, please… :)

    2. Odis

      Of course Iona have their own agenda Jimmy. I “read” the instruction book, that comes with it. However they aren’t selling the “God Hates ****” agenda here. They are selling the “9 out of 10 social scientists agree” story. Though I doubt that this is the case (with the social scientists). The fact of the matter is it sounds reasonable

  9. Disgraced Former Minister Frilly Mickie Keane

    I think the Iona Institute are being endowed with far too much respect about their ethos

    I stand by my opinion that its a livelihood. A well paying gig. An angle.

    They’ll hop on anything that gets the money in the door.

    Every speaking opportunity, every photo-op, every soundbite, every leaflet drop and every mail shot, all contribute to feeding the income line. They will argue that it is their message is their mission. BullshIt. It’s product placement.

    And we oil their machine for free. The Sounds of Sod scam for good example.

    They will insist that the promotion of Catholic Values (ha!) and religious dogma is their only aim.
    Bullsh1t. That’s their trading stock.

    They will insist that they walk in the glow of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Mary. And the Holy Family. Bullsh1t. That’s just their staff uniform.

    See it as a business out to make a buck.
    And recognise that its dog eat dog out there

    Ye’ll soon find that this organisation is just a new breed of head shop.

    Iona is nothing more than a grubby commercial enterprise.

    Unfortunately, since they enjoy Charitable Status, we are stakeholders.
    And thats what makes me bother my arse with them at all.

    1. Joe the Lion

      That’s very true

      It would be well worth seeing an analysis of fees paid, if any to members of this institute for their badger baiting

    2. newsjustin

      People who hate them (Iona) put them on some kind of pedestal with stuff like this. They’re a lobby group, plain and simple. Lobby yourself or found your own lobby group if you’re that interested.

    3. Odis

      That’s all true Frilly. But Andrex has been selling arse wipes as something to do with labrador puppies for years and gets away with it.

      1. Disgraced Former Minister Frilly Mickie Keane

        That would be much nicer infograph thingie tho

        BTW. Do the owners, makers, distributors and retailers of Andrez branded products enjoy Charitable Status?

          1. Disgraced Former Minister Frilly Mickie Keane

            Nope. Not sore.

            And if I bring another doggie onto the house I’ll be joining Fluffy in the house hunt.

            An interesting note to add to your Andrex eg. Is that Andrex pay for their broadcasted product placements. The very opposite applies to Iona’s marketing and promotional activities.

    1. Joe the Lion

      it’s too long and waffles on so

      but yes women have often impersonated men for all sorts of reasons, usually to do with seeking legal certainty

      there are many folk songs in the traditional canon where women have dressed as male sailors and got on board ships to go and find their missing husbands

      there was a practical reason for this, I learned recently

      a woman could not legally call herself a ‘widow’ or remarry or take legal title of property until she proved a missing husband dead. pretty hard to do if the corpse was thrown overboard as it would be on a ship.
      so some went to Africa and places like that and got local doctors to produce death certificates for closure.

  10. Lu

    Isn’t the basic argument here that we are not asking for YOU to BELIEVE that marriage is the same between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple – believe what you like, that’s your right. What is being asked is to allow the STATE to treat it’s citizens equally regardless of your belief. Nobody is being asked to change their personal beliefs, just to allow the state to recognise other people beliefs.

    1. Joe

      Ye very good point.

      I still don’t think a union of either Church and State in anyone’s life is a good idea but each to their moan.

      Vote yes for equality and move on to something more important please.

      1. Lu

        I do happen to think people who think of same sex marriage as lesser or wrong are prejudiced against LGBT people and therefore homophobic, but that’s not the point and not what the yes campaign should be about.

  11. newsjustin

    How could “not being an institute” be seen as homophobic? As the poster seems to suggest at the end? In fact 3 out of 4 of the things listed couldn’t be seen as homophobic…

    Did anyone proofread this?

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      Thats not what it says. People see institute and think well, there must be experts in social sciences or mental health working there. Granted, they have a psychiatrist but a dodgy one

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          They are saying it is at the minimum disingenuous to claim you are an institute when really what you are in a interest group. But nice you picked up on that one point rather than the others.

          1. newsjustin

            I mentioned the 3/4 points that couldn’t be interpreted as “being homophobic”

            This poster is just badly constructed.

      1. Odis

        Yeah right Don. They are selling it as an “Institute” and it works. They are good at it. Their stuff is reasonably slick. They are very capable and punching well over their weight.

        That’s the way it is. It’s disingenuous. Know them and learn from them.

        (I don’t mean “know” in the biblical sense -BTW)

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          Totally agree, they shouldn’t be allowed to. Its gives them far greater legitimacy than they deserve

          1. Odis

            Problem with that approach – is that they are totally legit. And at the end of the day its a “freedom of speech” thing. Something I’m 100% behind, on principle.

            Recent government attempts to hobble charities amount to the Quango known as the Charities Regulation Authority. Soon to be making a fabulous nuisance of itself to the bingo committees in Village Halls throughout culchieland. However Iona is big enough to brush these clowns aside like a minor irritant. That’s it for legislation really.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            I guess I mean legitimacy as in grounded in evidence and therefore the appropriate people to be advising on these issues.

            Charities in the UK are no longer allowed to lobby, but only because they kept showing up the Tories and they got mad. Well, mainly.

    2. Don Pidgeoni

      Thats not what it says. People see institute and think well, there must be experts in social sciences or mental health working there. Granted, they have a psychiatrist but a dodgy one

      1. rotide

        This is hardly looking behind the curtain Don.

        Now that we’ve deconstructed the Iona lie, it’s time to move on to Actimel fooling all us sheeple with their “L. Casei Immunitas”. SCOUNDRELS!

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          I know but people cherry-picking science annoy me

          Try Yakult rotide. It won’t cure you on anything but its tasty

  12. rotide

    The yes campaign in this referendum should be about ensuring that marriage equality is gained. It should not be about shining a light on any and all homophobia, real or perceived in our society.

    people would do well to realise this.

    1. fluffybiscuits

      At the root of the No campaign is homophobia though. Any belief which dictates that gay people is lesser in the eyes of civic society than their peers is homophobic.

        1. fluffybiscuits

          I wish I had a pop up book to illustrate this nice point for you

          You said “It should not be about shining a light on any and all homophobia, ”

          When we attack the no side, we are attacking homophobic ideals and thereby always going to shine a light into it..

        2. rotide

          My point is you/we should not be ‘attacking’ the no side.

          Promoting the yes side and debunking any erroneous claims is fine. “Attacking” the no side can cause as much harm in some cases.

          1. Odis

            @ Fluffy
            >“At the root of the No campaign is homophobia though” – Righto, thanks for pointing that out, to me.
            It had completely slipped my notice until now – like.

      1. newsjustin

        What about a belief that a gay union is different to a hetrosexual marriage? Not better or worse, just different? Is that homophobic? Does the current constitutional bar on under 35 year olds running got President mean Ireland is hateful and intolerant towards 20-somethings?

        1. Lu

          No – read the definition of homophobia again – different is just an observation. The problems would occur when the constitution recognises that difference – that leaves the door open for abuse of that notion. The step from different to wrong or less is a tiny one that is often difficult to see.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            News, how exactly do you think a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman differs from that of a man and a woman, ignoring gender? Im assuming you think they differ in some way

        2. Jane

          Well, probably. It’s an odd belief, at any rate. I would say that my marriage is different to anyone else’s, not better or worse, just different. Mainly because every couple finds their own way – a compromise between two sets of expectations and family of origin experiences. But I can’t imagine any way that my straight marriage is different to my straight brother’s marriage that wouldn’t also be true of our gay cousin’s marriage (he lives in a forrin land).

          Is there any factor that you can point to that would illustrate your point? Any commonality between all straight marriages that is qualitatively or quantitatively different to all gay marriages?

          1. newsjustin

            Your right, all marriages are different.

            I suppose the main difference is that straight marriages have, in theory at least, a potential for creating a child between the two married people (not all do in reality though…age, fertility problems). Whereas a same-sex marriage, does not. So they are different in that sense.

          2. rotide

            Pretty sure your cousin and his fella don’t argue as much about the toilet seat being left down. That’s a difference :)

          3. Don Pidgeoni

            Oh god, back to the cliched children argument every single time (counter argument widowers, people who can’t have kids, people who choose not to, same-sex couples who used other means). Is that the best you have?

  13. andyourpointiswhatexactly

    “Do you think we should allow grandmothers and their daughters to get married?” asked Breda.
    SURE! Of course they can. Just not to each other, you witless gom.

  14. Jane

    Sorry, can’t reply to this in the appropriate place.

    “Absolute rubbish. The holding of ones opinion does not make you hate the holder of another.”

    I think you may have misunderstood my point, so with your grace, I’ll clarify. Lots of people hold two beliefs that can sometimes come into conflict – in the example I’m using, a person can hold the belief that all people are equal and that marriage is between a man and a woman. In the case of this referendum, there are people who will be forced to choose which belief is more important to them. It’s my view – and I think it’s correct, I have read no argument that convinces me otherwise – that if you decide that the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is more important to you than the belief that all people are equal, then perhaps you have to admit that you are homophobic.

    “I can respect that lady’s point of view and still hold my own.”

    You can. I have my suspicions that the lady in question is a convenient cipher for your own beliefs – mainly because you haven’t stated your own beliefs and are reacting in a very defensive way to anyone drawing conclusions from how you choose to portray this lady’s beliefs. However, it hardly matters from whence the beliefs come, the point is, what do they mean?

    “It’s a democracy.”

    That hasn’t been denied, although I’m a bit confused as to the relevance here.

    “You can’t let her have her opinion without labelling her homophobic.”

    I don’t know this, er, lady, but I’m giving you my opinion of how I think her belief that marriage being between a man and a woman is compatible with not being homophobic if she is able to set aside that belief in favour of the belief that gay people are equal and entitled to live their lives as they see fit. If er…she believes that abstract beliefs are prior to the rights of living people, er…she may have to consider why she thinks that. To my mind, it’s most likely homophobia, there is no other plausible explanation that I have yet come across. However, I am interested in ideas and being challenged about my own, so if you know of one, I’d certainly welcome the opportunity to consider it.

    “That’s small minded and vindictive and just leads to more hate.”

    Could you clarify why you think that?

    “It’s not a sociology lecture. It’s real life.”

    Top marks. Precisely. There are real life people who will be affected by what we’re discussing, and respect for them is the paramount consideration. To clarify, I do not consider people who set their beliefs above the rights of other people to be among those who will actually be affected. The abstract concepts of what marriage really is must come a very poor second to ill founded and ill considered beliefs.

  15. Mark Dennehy

    Gonna be interesting to see if there’s a defamation case on the foot of that.

    Either (a) there is none, which is up there with admitting it’s true when you have the resources and motivation to bring such a case; or (b) the defence will be that it’s all true in which case the court’s judgement will probably be the kind of document you put in a frame and hang on the wall :D

          1. Jane

            Thank you. I’ve often been on the cusp of making a remark but haven’t because you’e already made a better point more succintly.

  16. Dubloony

    I think Iona are worthy of serious study. The infographic is a draft, a first attempt but could do with some additional information.

    Lose the tone and homophobe comments and let the facts speak for themselves.

    If any organisation is publicly campaigning to influence the laws of this country where all citizens are affected, then its fair to hold them to scrutiny.

    Example: The relationship between a relatively small group of people who are directors of various overlapping organisations and the very large influence they have in public life.

    1. For a small lobby group, Iona have columnists in Irish Times, Independent, frequent radio contributions and appear frequently on RTE TV.
    2. Mr. Ascough of Iona is also a director of Spirit Radio. Frequent contributor is David Quinn.
    3. Mrs Jacki Ascough, of Texas, wife of Tom, frequent columist for Alive! newspaper give out in churches all over the country.
    4. Jacki is referenced by Family & Media Association (of BAI ruling fame): here http://www.fma.ie/faith_in_media/2014/2/faithinmedia-5-2-2014.html speaking as audience member on Primetime last year.
    5. One of the founders of Iona is Fr. Bendan Purcell, former lecturer in UCD. He is a donor to Sen. Ronan Mullen.
    Source: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/Annual-Disclosures/Disclosure-by-TDs,-Senators-and-MEPs/2013-Donations-disclosed/Donation-Statements-Report-2013.pdf
    6. David Quinn is also founder of Legatus chapter in Ireland http://www.legatus.org/chapter/dublin a group set up specifically to target wealthy business people and influencers. This years speakers list includes the Papal Nuncio, the new US ambassador to Ireland . Full list here: http://www.legatus.org/sites/default/files/chapter/dublin/Dublin_2015_Programs.pdf
    The qualifications for membership is eye popping: http://www.legatus.org/qualifications

    One could go on for hours.

    The list of sub-groups is quite astonishing but I think that that is the point. They make it look like there’s lots of groups supporting old school 1950’s Catholicism but the same few coming up again and again. They all purport to be lay catholic organisations but its obvious that they have huge support from clergy and religious at all levels.

    1. newsjustin

      Ireland is a small country. The number of people exercised enough to form any kind of a lobby group on just about anything is small. So it stands to reason it would be an intertangled group.

      Your devastating scoop above amounts to “they mostly know each other and some have even married each other.”

      1. Clampers Outside!

        No, not when you consider that both YD and Iona often claim that they have no voice in the media in Ireland and that they are sidelined, when clearly they have a voice, and influence.

        So, no, it is not what you claim it amounts to.

        IMO.

      2. Dubloony

        Eh, no, bit more to it than that. There are many, many entangled groups with overlapping membership with the same goals.
        The purpose of having multiple organisations is to make it look as if a cause is supported by more people than it actually is and also to act as a echo chamber, amplifying the same idea in a wide range of media (church, newspapers TV, radio & internet)

        In business terms its called an Interlocking Directorate.

        1. newsjustin

          So what?

          Are you telling me that, for example, the pro-choice (on abortion) lobby isn’t full of many entangled groups?

          Your criticism seems to be based on the fact that this lobby group (or groups) seem to be quite good at lobbying.

    2. Llareggub

      ‘Lose the tone and homophobe comments and let the facts speak for themselves.’

      Yes to this.

  17. Jane

    Once again I can’t reply in the right place…

    “I suppose the main difference is that straight marriages have, in theory at least, a potential for creating a child between the two married people (not all do in reality though…age, fertility problems). Whereas a same-sex marriage, does not. So they are different in that sense”

    Well I would argue that they really aren’t all that different in that sense. Many straight marriages – as you correctly point out – do not produce children, by preference, circumstance and sometimes just by bad luck. However, they’re still marriages and still families – I’m expecting my first child with my husband but we were a family before we concieved, we were a family when I miscarried and we’re a family now that this pregnancy is working out. So it was very possible that my marriage would have had more in common with my my cousin’s marriage than my brother’s as far a children go.

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that many gay couples already have children from other relationships as do many straight couples. Are those blended families any different to each other because of the sexuality of the parents? I can’t really see how.

    1. rotide

      Jane, you write well but you suck at replying :)

      Just keep replying to the same thing when you run out of reply indents, it keeps things tidy.

  18. Bluebeard

    I made my opinion very clear. I will be voting yes. The lady in question is my mother. I respect her opinion. She is not a homophobe by any means. She is a lady in every sense of the word. I am defending her right to have a different opinion to mine.
    Your response is gauche and reductive. If you disagree, you’re a homophobe. All your arch words don’t change that. To reduce the argument to that makes it divisive and tawdry. We are on the same side, but I despise the atmosphere you are promoting.

    1. Llareggub

      Bluebeard, there seems to be a core group of Broadsheet commenters who gang up on anybody who disagrees with the masses here. I for one respect your mother’s right to vote no. We live in a democracy and I am tired of this word ‘homophobe’ being bandied about when someone dares to challenge gay marriage.

      homophobia: an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

      It really is okay for your mother or anybody else to hold her own values and disagree with gay marriage without being labelled a homophobe by those with an agenda.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Some people would argue that opposition to equal marriage is irrational against gay people and therefore homophobic because there are no reasonable arguments against it.

        1. Llareggub

          Sure you could argue anything really to bloat your agenda. Sometimes people trust their gut on certain matters. Maybe this is one of them. You can label them as you wish but it won’t make them feel any different. To be honest I couldn’t care less about labels. I think what I think and I feel what I feel and I vote how I wish.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            “I think what I think and I feel what I feel and I vote how I wish” but other people have “agendas”? And other people label things wrong? Silly.

          2. Sam

            yes, but those whose opinions would remove your rights to marry aren’t in the majority so you be as smug as you like about everyone being entitled to their opinion, but the status quo is forcing an opinion on people who don’t share it, simply because it was set up by a homophobic society and left to fester.

          3. rotide

            Sam, the status quo will always force an opinion on people who don’t share it. That’s just how laws work.

          4. Sam

            Well rotide, in the democracy we pretend to operate in there are some things called ‘rights’ that are not supposed to be decided by simple majority, but rather weighed up by consequences, such that a certain right can’t simply be restricted simply because some people don’t like it, but only because it would be injurious to other competing rights.

            Removing the barrier to marry for same sex couples would not have any impact on anybody else’s right to marriage.

          5. rotide

            I couldn’t agree more Sam, but that’s not what you said originally. You said ‘opinion’ not ‘rights’. Just pointing that out.

        2. Bluebeard

          keep looking don. your obsession with homophobes means you will certainly find them. What a sad pastime though!

      2. Anne

        Well, no one thinks of themselves as a homophobe.
        Of course people can vote how they want.. but why shouldn’t old fashioned, closed minded attitudes be confronted?
        I confront the mother when she does an eww at gay men kissing on the telly.. and she’ll say it’s wrong as it says so in the bible. I certainly aint saying, ah yeah that’s grand, I respect that opinion, when I don’t.

        1. rotide

          There are very many straight people who do an ewww when they see gay people kissing on TV. If this makes them homophobes, then fine. If that is the case, then you’ve got to stop throwing the word around like it is synonymous with ‘Al Qaeda’ then.

  19. Anne

    So they’re worth 300k, and they were looking to raise ‘the modest sum of 10k at Christmas’
    And they broke it down nice and simple for people too, to 100 people giving 100 euro each, and 200 people giving 50.. Fupping scroungers. I thought they didn’t have a bob.

    “If any organisation is publicly campaigning to influence the laws of this country where all citizens are affected, then its fair to hold them to scrutiny.”
    Well said above…

    And don’t they have charity status too? What’s spreading nonsense got to with charity?

    1. Odis

      Charity covers not for profit organisations.
      e.g. A lot of the Tidy Towns groups are charities for instance. You would ask how does planting flowers in tubs and the like amount to charity? They would say they are improving amenities for local citizens.

      Charity is different things for different people.
      Iona would say they are fighting, the good fight for religious types in the community, who are constantly being screwed over by secularists and in this instance gays. – that’s completely legit.

  20. Bluebeard

    Thank you. It is strange that so many here treat others with the very behaviours they claim to abhor.

    1. sickofallthisbs

      You see the first mistake you made was thinking that Broadsheet readers can see through their own hypocrisy. Secondly, most are just bleating whatever the media/BS/Internet is telling them without actually debating anything (like you said earlier). I don’t think your mother is a homophobe, she probably just has a different value system to what the next generation to her have, sadly people can’t see that.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Neither of my grans had a problem with it so the different values in different generation is a bit of a cop out tbf

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            That is true

            *proudface*

            Not all old people are bigots though, not even non-feminazi-matriarchs

  21. Bluebeard

    I think Mr lion that you have revealed yourself. You are obviously more interested in hurting those who hurt you than in promoting the cause of gay marriage. Victory to you is finding homophobes everywhere. Even those who support your cause like me. You should really explore your intentions before you harm our side any more.

    1. Joe the Lion

      What ’cause’ – what the hell are you talking about?

      The principle of equality is a ’cause’ now is it?

      You don’t support us. You’ve said above the only reason you support us is for love rather than hate.
      You’re implying those with whom you disagree are hateful.

      As for your mother’s pov the plain fact is that it is ignorant, and belies someone lacking in education.

      1. Bluebeard

        Right Mr Lion, you have roared and unfortunately it only amplifies your bigotry. I told you I was a supporter and that I would vote yes. My intention for doing so was compassion for those it would affect rather than victory over those who it wouldn’t. You have called me a homophobe which just shows how much you know.

        Your anger is palpable so I don’t want to rile you anymore in case you burst a blood vessel. but this preening, vengeful, hate filled anger is not going to help my cause which is to get the vote passed. you are more interested in being some kind of McCarthyite, witch hunting for homophobes. good luck with that. with your attitude, you will find plenty of them. bring Jane with you to confirm your sightings and commence the burning at the stakes,

        My mum called. She said she doesn’t care if you call her a homophobe. She only takes fence from people she respects. you’re off the hook mate!

        1. d4n

          Tbh, I think you’re misunderstanding what the word homophobe actually signifies.
          To use a separate example: Lots of people hear the word misogynist and think it means some huge and extreme hatred of women, but it doesn’t. It means an ingrained notion of what females SHOULD be. The bias might be huge, or it might be trivial, that you think pink is for girls. This is fairly trivial, and wouldn’t make you a hate filled bigot, but it’s still misogynistic, because it’s a value judgement that has no basis other than your own preconceptions. (I don’t mean you personally here)
          Same thing applies to homophobes, it doesn’t mean you’re frothing at the mouth dying to kill anyone who’s not 100% straight, it means you want to restrict their options in life based on your preconceptions about how things SHOULD be.
          This is the sense in which the word is used by those experienced in this kind of struggle, & should probably be clarified for those who aren’t. And this is the sense in which your mother (or whoever) IS homophobic. The difficulty is that for people who are homophobic in the weaker sense the idea that they are homophobic seems like a huge insult when they may only be expressing a mild opinion, but, when they vote in line with that opinion, they cause huge damage to people for whom their opinion results in a huge restriction of their worth as human beings.
          This doesn’t apply (imo) to the Iona people who are actually homophobic in the stronger sense.
          Sorry for the caps etc.

          1. Bluebeard

            Thanks for the attempt at clarifying. Unfortunately, what you are really doing is applying the term homophobe in such a wide sense that it is meaningless. In my opinion, people like my mother can wish marriage remain as it is without being homophobic. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and she believes this to be the meaning of it. YOU are the ones telling her how it SHOULD be. And because she doesn’t agree, YOU label her a homophobe. Its like saying that someone who doesn’t want a traveller camping on their lawn is a racist anti-traveller. Marriage was never set -up to discriminate against gay people, so those who like it the way it is are not protecting a homophobic institution. I have no real attachment to the institution so have no issue with anyone who wants to be part of it, however, other people do feel an attachment to the institution as it always has been, and I totally respect their wishes.

          1. rotide

            Well I would say that I have changed my mind on several issues due to good , well reasoned logical arguments made by people to me. I suspect it would be wasted on someone who makes retard jokes though.

            Having said that, Feel free to link me to anywhere that I’ve U-turned on something mid argument.

            Or you know, resort to CANT B ARSED M8 LOLZ

          1. sickofallthisbs

            Why don’t you tell us more about your bowel movements? I am seeking of you concealing them as your opinions.

  22. Mikeyfex

    I’ve dipped in and out of this all day and from what I’ve seen, everyone is either clearly on the Yes side, or have clarified that they’re on the Yes side. 220 comments from everyone ‘in agreement’. Good thing the manner in which someone makes a point doesn’t matter, eh?

  23. rotide

    Everyone posting on this website (except possibly ABM, but im not sure sure ) was going to be voting yes regardless of this infographic.

    1. newsjustin

      This is more about people’s hatred (it is pure, unadulterated hatred) of people like David Quinn, Breda O’Brien and Ronan Mullan….you know, people who don’t agree with us.

      The hypocrisy of the homophobic hatred dished out by some whenever Ronan Mullan’s name is mentioned is illuminating. As if gay was the worst thing one could call someone.

      1. Joe the Lion

        He holds hateful views. I don’t hate the man personally, I met him once or twice and he seems personable enough.

        1. Jane

          He’s probably personable enough, kind to his mother etc. He’s also clearly not stupid, but has fallen into the error that many religious people make – that his views are correct because an imaginary old man in the sky shares them. This belief is impervious to any logic but has had baleful consequences for millions.

          1. Bluebeard

            “Logic” has been used in history to do so many cruel things jane. I believe Mr Dawkins used it recently to advocate aborting a foetus with Down Syndrome. You are now using it to label people with a toxic moniker for holding a point of view. Be careful where you go with that. What is logical isn’t always right when it comes to humans. Thats why its possible to hold contradicting views.

  24. Bluebeard

    No he didn’t. He tweeted “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” to a woman who was carrying a child with Downs Syndrome. So stop your hate missus and do your research. And your pathetic dig about Iona ! You should have just called me a homophobe you spanner.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie