Jan 222015
 

When all else fails, use the children.  That was always the way of the religious Right, not just in Ireland, but worldwide, and so it remains today.

Clearly aware that blatant opposition to same-sex relationships will be counter-productive, the likes of the Iona “Institute” have changed tack, attempting to focus instead on the rights of children.  But in doing that, ironically, the Iona “Institute” does exactly what it accuses its opponents of — trying to redefine marriage.  By insisting that procreation is an integral element of marriage, the Ionanists exclude all post-menopausal women, all men who, for one reason or another, cannot father children, and everyone who feels disinclined to have offspring.

In other words, marriage is what the Ionanists decide it ought to be, not what it actually is in the wide, non-specific world where there are no certainties and where people muddle through as best they can.  In the eyes of the religious Right, there is no room for nuance, no room for anything other than certainty, prescribed ways of being and approved forms of family.  Iona’s eyes are fixed firmly on the region between the belly-button and the knees, as usual with religious obsessives.

One of the silliest fallacies they continue to parrot is the deeply dishonest position of the Irish Catholic bishops, that marriage equality will deprive children of the right to a mother and a father.  You would think, to listen to David Quinn and Breda O’Brien, that there was some proposal to knock down doors, kidnap children and hand them over to the ravening gays.

Here’s a nasty distortion that we hear from them lately: if gays are allowed to marry, it won’t be possible to give preference to a heterosexual couple over a same-sex couple in an adoption.

Firstly, that statement is filled with contempt for the adoptive children they claim to have so much concern for.  They make the child sound like a prize in a cheap TV contest.  I didn’t get the baby but I won the electric kettle.

There are no bidding wars for children, except in the fevered imaginations of the Ionanists.  This sort of nonsense is the modern equivalent of the despicable Hello Divorce, Bye Bye Daddy nonsense of the 90s and it plays to the silliest fears of Middle Ireland, which of course is the constituency identified by Iona as the one most likely to deliver a result.

hello divorce bye bye daddy

Secondly, the decision on who gets custody of a child will be made on the basis not of sexual orientation but on who is more suitable to adopt.  It might be the heterosexual couple, it might be the same-sex couple and it might be a single person, depending on the individual circumstances.  To suggest otherwise is both a cynical attempt to stir up fear, and also a vote of contempt for the professionalism of the Adoption Board.

Iona worries

I don’t know why Breda O’Brien or David Quinn are so obsessed with what goes on in families, given the near-certainty that they have never personally experienced any sort of dysfunctionality or abuse, but they certainly seem to have an inordinate mistrust of normal decent people, a mistrust so strong that families need to be regulated by law.

This morning on RTE, Breda had her wife-swapping sodomites moment, when Audrey Carville pressed her on a fact of Irish life.  I’ll paraphrase for brevity.   Parroting the usual Iona line about the need for a mother and a father, Breda found herself stuck for words when confronted with a hard question.  Being asked hard questions is not a common experience for either of the Iona spokespeople on Irish media.

Isn’t it a fact, said Carville, that grandmothers have, for generations, raised their daughters’ children where the father was absent?

Breda tried to spin it as a tragedy that fathers were missing, but Carville pressed her.

What’s the difference to the child? What difference is there between being raised by a grandmother and mother, and being raised by two other women?

Despite Breda’s evasions, Audrey Carville stuck to the question.  What is the difference? until eventually Breda’s mask slipped and she spat back an acid rejoinder: Should we allow mothers to marry their daughters?

It was a comment as remarkable for its nastiness as it was for its sheer stupidity, but it also revealed an interesting fact.   The anti-equality lobby are on a script, and it doesn’t take much to knock them off it.  They’re not actually that impressive, despite calling themselves an Institute, which would be illegal in most European countries.

Nevertheless, Breda had a minor victory, even if it was at the cost of looking like a complete fool.  She succeeded in making the debate about children, even though marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Yesterday on TodayFM, David Quinn produced a bizarre moment when he seemed to suggest that there would be competition for IVF between straight and gay couples in a weird Battle of the Ovaries, and when he detected the nation laughing at him, went on to quote German law, appearing to forget that the discussion is about the Irish constitution.

As I said, they’re not that impressive when you get behind the bluster.

Here’s their problem.  Iona have been outflanked by the bug-eyed bigots, like Catholic Voice.  They can’t afford to be seen as outright homophobic, drooling fundamentalists, and therefore their options are limited.   It seems they’ve staked out the ground they intend to fight this battle on and that ground is adoption.

Well and good.

Every time you hear Dave and Breda talking about children, remind them that the dreaded gays can already adopt, and that the referendum is about marriage.

This anti-equality lobby isn’t all that impressive when you get behind the memorised script.

_____________

All articles on the Iona Institute

 

 

  10 Responses to “Anti-Equality Lobby Opts For Old Scare Tactic”

Comments (10)
  1.  

    Delete the initial “i” of Ionanists and what do you get? Wankers!

  2.  

    The sooner that people in this country understand in no uncertain terms that the Gay Lobby is a destructive political power on the march with an agenda of evil to fulfil the better. There is nothing benign about them.

    Same-sex marriage is just one component.
    Generations of children are placed at risk here in a social experiment that can only be described as demonic.

    Politicians and others who facilitate this will have a lot to answer for on that terrible Day of Judgement.

  3.  

    What fucking Judgement Day? Would you ever stop with that shite iap. You’re either taking the piss or you’re thick. Which is it?

  4.  

    A Little Cynical,

    No, I am not taking the piss, be sure of that. As for being thick, well, that is a matter of opinion and as others have said the same, then maybe I should yield to majority vote and simply recognise that by your own standards and expression, (speaking in Dublinese), I am as thick as two f*****g short boards!

    However, how intelligent I am or am not is not the point. The point is whether I am right or not.

    Is there a Day of Judgement coming upon the whole world in which every last one of us will stand before Almighty God accounting for every careless word we utter? Millions besides myself believe so and Jesus of Nazereth spoke several times of it. Maybe you know better than He. The saints and the sinners alike will there, there are no exceptions and nobody will be sitting up there on some cloud, safely out of the way, looking down at everybody elses’ misery.

    Men and women of power in our world who seem to insist on going against the ordinances of God will do very well to reflect on this.

    Bock,

    This thread is listed under “Religion” so please don’t knock me as being on my religious high hoss.

  5.  

    Given his previous behaviour, iap is not taken seriously. He’s categorised as an amusing troll, published only for his entertainment value.

  6.  

    I have no problem with two people of the same sex getting married but adoption is another matter altogether. Imagine the child in the schoolyard with two fathers and no mother or vice versa ,It does not bear thinking about their lives would be an absolute hell.

  7.  

    Jesus Spud have you not realised yet that children s attitudes to everything come from their elders/environment. We may not be ‘tabula rasa’ genetically but core beliefs and attitudes are as a result of indoctrination. How about teaching young kids about the natural diversity of life and the many ways that family can be defined. To decide that a whole group of people should be discriminated against because bullies exist is a bit simple if you don t mind me saying.

  8.  

    Spud, your point has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed amendment.

    Gay people can already adopt children.

    You mustn’t have got that memo.

  9.  

    Well spotted bock, marriage is a fairly vague & loose arrangement entered into without too many do’s & don’ts considered, heavily underpinned by a solid foundation of optimism whilst wearing rose tinted glasses. There was never a set of rules to follow even though men in frocks always tried to impose some.

Leave a Reply